I was a little worried that trade proposals would get lost in the noise of the other BBFL thread, so I decided to start a new one. If you've got a team in the Alomar Division please give us your trade offers!
Want to trade?
I'm not happy with my team at this point and I've already made a few trade offers via email. Anyone who dealt with me last year knows that I am always willing to talk about anyone. My roster includes all of these possible keepers:
Josh Beckett, Derrek Lee, Luis Castillo, Wade Miller, Livan Hernandez, Jason Varitek, Edgar Martinez, Ray Durham, Erubial Durazo and Eddie Guardado.
All are available. Teams with few keepers take note - I'm more than willing to trade 3 of my guys for 1 of yours. Gracias.
I'm not happy with my team at this point and I've already made a few trade offers via email. Anyone who dealt with me last year knows that I am always willing to talk about anyone. My roster includes all of these possible keepers:
Josh Beckett, Derrek Lee, Luis Castillo, Wade Miller, Livan Hernandez, Jason Varitek, Edgar Martinez, Ray Durham, Erubial Durazo and Eddie Guardado.
All are available. Teams with few keepers take note - I'm more than willing to trade 3 of my guys for 1 of yours. Gracias.
If you're the private type, feel free to email me. COMN.
masssuckage commodities:
Shawn Green
Estaban Loaiza
Ivan Rodriguez
Armando Benitez
Hee Choi
Tim Hudson
J.D. Drew
Brad Radke
Shawn Green
Estaban Loaiza
Ivan Rodriguez
Armando Benitez
Hee Choi
Tim Hudson
J.D. Drew
Brad Radke
AGF checks in with:
Randy Johnson
Ichiro
Phil Nevin
Jamie Moyer
Carlos Zambrano
Marcus Giles
Corey Patterson
Ken Griffey
Mariano Rivera
Juan Gonzales
Open to trading anyone, but especially the bottom 8 on the list.
Randy Johnson
Ichiro
Phil Nevin
Jamie Moyer
Carlos Zambrano
Marcus Giles
Corey Patterson
Ken Griffey
Mariano Rivera
Juan Gonzales
Open to trading anyone, but especially the bottom 8 on the list.
As mentioned in the other BBFL thread, the Rats check in with these potential keepers available for trade:
Nomar Garciaparra
Richie Sexson
Jake Peavy
Miguel Batista
Brad Wilkerson
Carl Everett
Gil Meche
Rocco Baldelli
Vicente Padilla
and, at a stretch, Shiggy Hasegawa
Excuse me for not including an email address, but Mike sent all of them out to everyone, and I HATE SPAM.
Thank you.
Nomar Garciaparra
Richie Sexson
Jake Peavy
Miguel Batista
Brad Wilkerson
Carl Everett
Gil Meche
Rocco Baldelli
Vicente Padilla
and, at a stretch, Shiggy Hasegawa
Excuse me for not including an email address, but Mike sent all of them out to everyone, and I HATE SPAM.
Thank you.
http://economics.about.com
Excuse me for not including an email address, but Mike sent all of them out to everyone, and I HATE SPAM.
There's also an e-mail account that if you send a message to that account, it will send a message to everyone in Alomar. Your best bet is to use that if you're trying to reach someone and you don't have their address.
If anyone isn't on that list, please let me know. Giving out your e-mail account in a public forum is a patently bad idea, coz you'll get spammed to death. That's why I only give out my about.com address, coz it's already on every spam list anyway.
Cheers,
Mike
Excuse me for not including an email address, but Mike sent all of them out to everyone, and I HATE SPAM.
There's also an e-mail account that if you send a message to that account, it will send a message to everyone in Alomar. Your best bet is to use that if you're trying to reach someone and you don't have their address.
If anyone isn't on that list, please let me know. Giving out your e-mail account in a public forum is a patently bad idea, coz you'll get spammed to death. That's why I only give out my about.com address, coz it's already on every spam list anyway.
Cheers,
Mike
Hey Moffatt...what's going to be the process for reporting a trade?
http://economics.about.com
Hey Moffatt...what's going to be the process for reporting a trade?
Good question. I guess just have both parties announce it via BBFL e-mail. The important thing is that Scott Lucas knows you made the trade, as he's the one archiving everything.
Cheers,
Mike
Hey Moffatt...what's going to be the process for reporting a trade?
Good question. I guess just have both parties announce it via BBFL e-mail. The important thing is that Scott Lucas knows you made the trade, as he's the one archiving everything.
Cheers,
Mike
The 'Topes bargaining chips:
Beltre, Adrian (3B-LA)
Boone, Aaron (3B, SS, 2B-NYY) (Haha, just kidding)
Escobar, Kelvim (RP, SP-Ana)
Fick, Robert (RF, 1B-Atl)
Furcal, Rafael (SS-Atl)
Konerko, Paul (1B-CWS) Could bounce back this year
Maroth, Mike (SP-Det)
Mussina, Mike (SP-NYY)
Nixon, Trot (RF-Bos)
Posada, Jorge (C-NYY)
Sheets, Ben (SP-Mil)
Sosa, Sammy (RF-ChC)
All are available for the right price and maybe a case of Duff (my goal is to get something Simpson's related into every fantasy post)
Beltre, Adrian (3B-LA)
Boone, Aaron (3B, SS, 2B-NYY) (Haha, just kidding)
Escobar, Kelvim (RP, SP-Ana)
Fick, Robert (RF, 1B-Atl)
Furcal, Rafael (SS-Atl)
Konerko, Paul (1B-CWS) Could bounce back this year
Maroth, Mike (SP-Det)
Mussina, Mike (SP-NYY)
Nixon, Trot (RF-Bos)
Posada, Jorge (C-NYY)
Sheets, Ben (SP-Mil)
Sosa, Sammy (RF-ChC)
All are available for the right price and maybe a case of Duff (my goal is to get something Simpson's related into every fantasy post)
A couple of trades have been reported thus far.
Trade #1:
To the Isotopes - Matt Morris and Cliff Lee
To the Bashers - Mike Mussina
Trade #2:
To the Rats - Josh Beckett and Ray Durham
To the Mosquitoes - Nomar Garciaparra
I'm still looking to juggle my roster a bit and I'm looking for a frontline non-1B infielder. And eventhough I've acquired Mussina I still might be interested in adding an impact starter or even an elite closer. Feel free to drop me a line.
Trade #1:
To the Isotopes - Matt Morris and Cliff Lee
To the Bashers - Mike Mussina
Trade #2:
To the Rats - Josh Beckett and Ray Durham
To the Mosquitoes - Nomar Garciaparra
I'm still looking to juggle my roster a bit and I'm looking for a frontline non-1B infielder. And eventhough I've acquired Mussina I still might be interested in adding an impact starter or even an elite closer. Feel free to drop me a line.
I'd consider trading Jason Schmidt for an elite hitter and would throw in Mike Lowell to balance the deal.
If you don't need Schmidt but want to get two or three keepers for one, choose from Lowell, Milton Bradley (321/421/501 with 17 steals in 2/3 of a season), David Wells (5.05 K/BB), Torii Hunter, Lo Duca, Loretta, K-Rod. I'd need one higher-ranked player in return.
If you don't need Schmidt but want to get two or three keepers for one, choose from Lowell, Milton Bradley (321/421/501 with 17 steals in 2/3 of a season), David Wells (5.05 K/BB), Torii Hunter, Lo Duca, Loretta, K-Rod. I'd need one higher-ranked player in return.
What I would really like to do is to package Luis Castillo (ranked 58th by ESPN and manning a weak position) and Wade Miller (93rd) together for a power hitter. Doesn't have to be anyone great but should be equal to or better than Castillo in terms of overall value. Is anyone interested? Email moi SVP.
Hi guys... if you've sent me a trade proposal and I haven't responded yet, I will try to do so tomorrow... it's been kind of a rough week and I just haven't had the time or headspace to properly consider fantasy baseball yet. My apologies.
A couple of minor transactions:
The gashouse gorillas have traded Edgar Renteria, Javy Lopez, and Brandon Webb to hannibal's cannibals (masssuckage) for Tim Hudson and Ivan Rodriguez.
After some comments Ivan made about the manager of the gorillas, he was quickly traded, along with Alfonso Soriano and Miguel Cabrera to the Eastern Shore Birds for Alex Rodriguez.
The trade brings Tim Hudson back to his home state, where he is looking forward to "...playing in front all [his] folks, and bringing a BBFL Championship to the Gashouse," a goal that the team has had since it finished first in the regular season standings last year, only to fall to the Nation Builders (now the Austin Senators) in the second round of the playoffs.
When told that Alex Rodriguez had just been traded to the team, he replied, "Wow. I hear he's pretty good."
Rodriguez and Hudson join Roy Oswalt, John Smoltz, and Mark Tiexeira as the cornerstones of the Gorilla franchise.
The gashouse gorillas have traded Edgar Renteria, Javy Lopez, and Brandon Webb to hannibal's cannibals (masssuckage) for Tim Hudson and Ivan Rodriguez.
After some comments Ivan made about the manager of the gorillas, he was quickly traded, along with Alfonso Soriano and Miguel Cabrera to the Eastern Shore Birds for Alex Rodriguez.
The trade brings Tim Hudson back to his home state, where he is looking forward to "...playing in front all [his] folks, and bringing a BBFL Championship to the Gashouse," a goal that the team has had since it finished first in the regular season standings last year, only to fall to the Nation Builders (now the Austin Senators) in the second round of the playoffs.
When told that Alex Rodriguez had just been traded to the team, he replied, "Wow. I hear he's pretty good."
Rodriguez and Hudson join Roy Oswalt, John Smoltz, and Mark Tiexeira as the cornerstones of the Gorilla franchise.
Trade Announcement:
The SABR Magicians, formerly the Sub-Urban Shockers, have traded Morgan Ensberg and Richard Hidalgo to the Red Mosquitos for Wade Miller and Boston catcher Jason Varitek.
It's Astrotastic.
The SABR Magicians, formerly the Sub-Urban Shockers, have traded Morgan Ensberg and Richard Hidalgo to the Red Mosquitos for Wade Miller and Boston catcher Jason Varitek.
It's Astrotastic.
Frank Thomas and Chipper Jones available for an SP
In the latest blockbuster BBFL deal, the Horse Field Hammers, formerly known as Geoff’s Grumpy Group, have acquired star righthander Jason Schmidt, slugging third baseman Mike Lowell and talented shortstop Orlando Cabrera. Going to the Toronto Walrus are Jim Thome and Rafael Palmeiro.
"I realize we already have Carlos Delgado, and this leaves two gaping holes on the left side of the infield," said Walrus GM Kent Williams. "My staff finally convinced me that pitching, defence and speed are overrated in baseball, and you can never have enough first basemen."
The Toronto owner, who still has Curt Schilling and Billy Wagner to anchor the pitching staff, said the recent A-Rod trade was another reason for making the swap. "We simply couldn’t stand pat while the Evil Emp— er, gashouse gorillas, were making moves."
Asked why he believed the 39-year-old Palmeiro would remain productive, Williams credited his scouts. "Our people talked to his people. We were assured that Raffy's physique is rock-hard, and his stamina has never been better."
"I realize we already have Carlos Delgado, and this leaves two gaping holes on the left side of the infield," said Walrus GM Kent Williams. "My staff finally convinced me that pitching, defence and speed are overrated in baseball, and you can never have enough first basemen."
The Toronto owner, who still has Curt Schilling and Billy Wagner to anchor the pitching staff, said the recent A-Rod trade was another reason for making the swap. "We simply couldn’t stand pat while the Evil Emp— er, gashouse gorillas, were making moves."
Asked why he believed the 39-year-old Palmeiro would remain productive, Williams credited his scouts. "Our people talked to his people. We were assured that Raffy's physique is rock-hard, and his stamina has never been better."
Just remember Coach, if Raffy plays for more than 4 hours, you better get him to a hospital.
Another deal was completed earlier today with the Bashers picking up Blalock and Damon from Glyndwr in exchange for Andru Jones and Carlos Lee.
Rules question for you Alomar types, sorry to disturb the trading hoopla. I posted this in the Barfield league message board, but no one had an answer yet. Clarification would be most appreciated.
-------------
The BBFL constituion states that you can keep a player for a maximum of 3 seasons. I have two questions about this:
First, does this mean you can declare that player as a keeper 3 times at most, hence having him on your team for 4 seasons? Or could the player be kept twice and play on your team for 3 seasons consecutively?
Second, how do trades affect keepers? With the flurry of trade activity in the Alomar division, I wonder how this affects the recipient of a new player. For example, can A-Rod and Soriano be kept by their new owners for a fresh 3 year period, or do they have the same clock and have to be returned to the draft pool at the same time (after 2 more seasons) as if they hadn't been traded?
-------------
The BBFL constituion states that you can keep a player for a maximum of 3 seasons. I have two questions about this:
First, does this mean you can declare that player as a keeper 3 times at most, hence having him on your team for 4 seasons? Or could the player be kept twice and play on your team for 3 seasons consecutively?
Second, how do trades affect keepers? With the flurry of trade activity in the Alomar division, I wonder how this affects the recipient of a new player. For example, can A-Rod and Soriano be kept by their new owners for a fresh 3 year period, or do they have the same clock and have to be returned to the draft pool at the same time (after 2 more seasons) as if they hadn't been traded?
That's a good question.
My understanding is that once a player is acquired, whether it be by trade, free agency, waivers, or draft, that player can be "kept" a maximum of three times by the acquiring owner.
The argument could be made, however, that after three full seasons (initial draft year plus two "keeper" years) the player goes back in the pool. We probably need to do a little ratifying to clear things up.
My understanding is that once a player is acquired, whether it be by trade, free agency, waivers, or draft, that player can be "kept" a maximum of three times by the acquiring owner.
The argument could be made, however, that after three full seasons (initial draft year plus two "keeper" years) the player goes back in the pool. We probably need to do a little ratifying to clear things up.
The sentence in question is:
Owners may keep a player for a maximum of three seasons...
It depends on your definition of "keep." Does it mean keep in the sense of "declare as a keeper" or is it just synonymous with "own."
I always took the second view, meaning that no one can own a player more than three seasons (2003-2005, 2004-2006, whatever). I say this because of the following sentence: "That player may be re-drafted by his former owner the following season, however, starting another 3-year cycle."
But I'm only the info clearinghouse, not the arbiter.
Owners may keep a player for a maximum of three seasons...
It depends on your definition of "keep." Does it mean keep in the sense of "declare as a keeper" or is it just synonymous with "own."
I always took the second view, meaning that no one can own a player more than three seasons (2003-2005, 2004-2006, whatever). I say this because of the following sentence: "That player may be re-drafted by his former owner the following season, however, starting another 3-year cycle."
But I'm only the info clearinghouse, not the arbiter.
I guess the wording of the consitution could be cleaned up to make the 3-year cycle point clearer, and like Scott feel that 3 years, not 4 (by keeping the player 3 times) is the spirit of the rule.
To be clear on my first question though, trades do reset the 3-year cycle? This will obviously have a dramatic influence on trades when a player has served his 3 year tenure on a team and must be traded or lost for nothing. If the 3-year cycle is not reset, then the player could not be traded as other owners would be in the exact same position. I think the resetting of the 3 year clock is the better option, and from snellville's remarks that seems to be the way things are.
To be clear on my first question though, trades do reset the 3-year cycle? This will obviously have a dramatic influence on trades when a player has served his 3 year tenure on a team and must be traded or lost for nothing. If the 3-year cycle is not reset, then the player could not be traded as other owners would be in the exact same position. I think the resetting of the 3 year clock is the better option, and from snellville's remarks that seems to be the way things are.
Trades do reset the cycle. A player acquired by trade is treated no differently than someone you draft or pick up on waivers.
Not to suggest that there are sinister owners in the BBFL, but if you re-acquire a player then perhaps the 3-year cycle should not be reset? For instance if you have A-Rod for a year, trade him, and then re-acquire him some time thereafter then I don't think you should be elgibile to keep him for an additional time (I hope this makes sense).
If there was a salary cap and this was an auction league, I would be in favour of a three-year "contract," after which a player went back into the FA pool, regardless of how many teams had owned him. Because that doesn't apply, the intent was that any one owner couldn't keep a player indefinitely. Trading does effectively reset the player's clock, which means that the superstars are unlikely to be available in the draft, ever.
Sorry if the language is vague. The rule should state that you can't own the same player for more than three seasons, or part thereof. In other words, I traded for Schilling late last year. Because he played for me in 2003, I can keep him only twice, then must either trade him or release him.
Since we didn't have offseason trading when the constitution was written, it's even more unclear how long I can keep Thome, who I acquired yesterday. My interpretation is that he can play for the Walrus in 2004, 2005 and 2006, so counting the upcoming draft, he might actually be a "keeper" three times.
I hate to make more work for Scott, but we should probably keep track of "season acquired" for each player, so all owners know when a guy is in his last year of eligibility with that team.
Sorry if the language is vague. The rule should state that you can't own the same player for more than three seasons, or part thereof. In other words, I traded for Schilling late last year. Because he played for me in 2003, I can keep him only twice, then must either trade him or release him.
Since we didn't have offseason trading when the constitution was written, it's even more unclear how long I can keep Thome, who I acquired yesterday. My interpretation is that he can play for the Walrus in 2004, 2005 and 2006, so counting the upcoming draft, he might actually be a "keeper" three times.
I hate to make more work for Scott, but we should probably keep track of "season acquired" for each player, so all owners know when a guy is in his last year of eligibility with that team.
If you've given up the players it takes to reacquire an ARod, you deserve to be able to keep him for another 3 years.
http://economics.about.com
I had completely forgotten that rule even existed. Given the trading a lot of you guys are doing, though, I don't think anyone will ever get to 3 years! :)
Cheers,
Mike
I had completely forgotten that rule even existed. Given the trading a lot of you guys are doing, though, I don't think anyone will ever get to 3 years! :)
Cheers,
Mike
I don't see any reason to adhere to this rule, and I propose we vote on it.
Heck, if Bush can amend the Constitution to restrict civil liberties, I think we can safely remove the 3-year clause without throwing the BBFL into chaos.
Like Coach says, it's not as if we're in an auction league.
Heck, if Bush can amend the Constitution to restrict civil liberties, I think we can safely remove the 3-year clause without throwing the BBFL into chaos.
Like Coach says, it's not as if we're in an auction league.
I believe this rule change proposal should be held off until the official period for doing so next year. I don't see holding off on this affecting anyones trades this offseason, though next season it certainly would, as players may have only 1 season left for a given team. The 3 year rule actually encourages trading and keeps things quite interesting, IMHO. To refresh our memories, the Moffatt off season schedule which was ratified by Alomar owners is:
Jan. 5 - Feb. 10 Rules are proposed
Feb. 11 - Feb. 13 Rules are voted on
Feb. 14 - Feb. 28 Off-Season Trade Window
Mar. 1 - Last Day For Team Name Changes
Mar. 1 - Mar. 4 Teams Announce Keepers for Upcoming Season
And upon re-reading the constitional amendments from last week, the first proposal was to limit rule changes to the off season rule change period, and it was supported by all 18 voters.
Jan. 5 - Feb. 10 Rules are proposed
Feb. 11 - Feb. 13 Rules are voted on
Feb. 14 - Feb. 28 Off-Season Trade Window
Mar. 1 - Last Day For Team Name Changes
Mar. 1 - Mar. 4 Teams Announce Keepers for Upcoming Season
And upon re-reading the constitional amendments from last week, the first proposal was to limit rule changes to the off season rule change period, and it was supported by all 18 voters.
http://economics.about.com
I'm with Jurgen on this one. I could see this rule being an organizational and administrative nightmare. Particularly with 40 teams.
Mind you, we could always vote on this during the next rule change period.
Cheers,
Mike
I'm with Jurgen on this one. I could see this rule being an organizational and administrative nightmare. Particularly with 40 teams.
Mind you, we could always vote on this during the next rule change period.
Cheers,
Mike
http://economics.about.com
Oh.. the other thing I was going to ask about.
Was the draft order for Alomar this year based on regular season or final season results? We decided what it will be for next year, but what was it supposed to be for this year?
Cheers,
Mike
Oh.. the other thing I was going to ask about.
Was the draft order for Alomar this year based on regular season or final season results? We decided what it will be for next year, but what was it supposed to be for this year?
Cheers,
Mike
I thought we voted on relegation based on regular season standings, not draft order. I am very opposed to going by regular season order for the draft. I didn't "win" last year, so I shouldn't have to have the last pick.
We modelled the draft order after MLB's draft rules. It doesn't matter who finishes where in the playoffs, the Amateur Draft is based on the previous season's regular season record. The same applies here. The constitution is fuzzy but we did discuss it at length.
Here's the legalese:
All subsequent seasons' draft orders will be determined by the reverse order of finish from the previous season; if two or more teams finish with identical W-L-T records, the team with the lowest pick the previous year gets the earliest pick.
The first part doesn't specify reverse order of regular season finish but the second part infers it. You can't have identical records if you include the playoffs in the standings.
Here's the legalese:
All subsequent seasons' draft orders will be determined by the reverse order of finish from the previous season; if two or more teams finish with identical W-L-T records, the team with the lowest pick the previous year gets the earliest pick.
The first part doesn't specify reverse order of regular season finish but the second part infers it. You can't have identical records if you include the playoffs in the standings.
Question about the BBFL mailing list. I recognize that there has been a great deal of activity of late because of the trade deadline, but can we lay out clear guidelines for usage? Emailing the league to announce a trade which is finalized is one thing, but all these trade offers which could be directed at only the manager in question only seems a bit much. I guess there might be issues with giving out everyone's email addresses (in some private manor, perhaps just one email to the entire list with the addresses), but I would prefer that to receiving an email with everyone's trade offers back and forth. 20 odd emails in one day from the BBFL mailing list is definitely unnecessary. Just my thoughts...
http://economics.about.com
I was just thinking about that. I'll send out an e-mail about the issue (how is that for irony?), but one thing I would recommend is adding Alomar or Barfield to the title of your e-mail, if it only applies to a particular league.
Cheers,
Mike
I was just thinking about that. I'll send out an e-mail about the issue (how is that for irony?), but one thing I would recommend is adding Alomar or Barfield to the title of your e-mail, if it only applies to a particular league.
Cheers,
Mike
As one of the culprits let me apologise for spamming everyone with my trade negotiations The list is setup a bit strangely, the reply-to: goes to the list address not the individual email address of the sender. maybe Mike can ask Joe to change that setting.
http://economics.about.com
Oh.. I forgot to mention.
The league keeps an Excel list of all the owners, their e-mail address, etc. I'll send out that list to each owner once I hear back from all the Barfield owners. I've only heard from about a dozen so far, and I think 2 or 3 still haven't signed up at Yahoo, though I understand there are some technical issues.
Cheers,
Mike
Oh.. I forgot to mention.
The league keeps an Excel list of all the owners, their e-mail address, etc. I'll send out that list to each owner once I hear back from all the Barfield owners. I've only heard from about a dozen so far, and I think 2 or 3 still haven't signed up at Yahoo, though I understand there are some technical issues.
Cheers,
Mike
20 odd emails in one day from the BBFL mailing list is definitely unnecessary.
I wish you wouldn't have said this. I was learning a lot about our fellow owners. ;)
I wish you wouldn't have said this. I was learning a lot about our fellow owners. ;)
Relegation can't be based on anything but the regular season; those teams won't be in the playoffs. I sympathize with Snellville, and Billy Beane for that matter, but the 23 weeks of the regular season is a much better yardstick of the relative strength of the teams than who got hot for a week in the playoffs, and that's why we used those standings to determine the draft order.
Obviously, the constitution isn't perfect, and I sincerely apologize for its fuzziness. I'm hoping we can all work together to clarify it. In hindsight, that should have been done before we voted on the recent amendments, but these issues weren't raised. Now, we're in a Catch-22 where changes will have to wait until next year.
The important thing to remember is, we're an evolving, second-year league. There will be a few growing pains. Nobody is trying to take advantage of any loopholes; flaws and all, I'm sure we'll have as much fun as we did last year.
Obviously, the constitution isn't perfect, and I sincerely apologize for its fuzziness. I'm hoping we can all work together to clarify it. In hindsight, that should have been done before we voted on the recent amendments, but these issues weren't raised. Now, we're in a Catch-22 where changes will have to wait until next year.
The important thing to remember is, we're an evolving, second-year league. There will be a few growing pains. Nobody is trying to take advantage of any loopholes; flaws and all, I'm sure we'll have as much fun as we did last year.
Hey, I pick second last no matter what so it doesn't make a difference to me. :)
Just to clarify, since there's an odd number of keepers, the initial draft order will have Snellville picking first overall? That way the 6th round (the first round of free agent selections) would see Geoff's team picking first and Snellville picking last.
Just to clarify, since there's an odd number of keepers, the initial draft order will have Snellville picking first overall? That way the 6th round (the first round of free agent selections) would see Geoff's team picking first and Snellville picking last.
I hate to make more work for Scott, but we should probably keep track of "season acquired" for each player, so all owners know when a guy is in his last year of eligibility with that team.
Already presumed on my part. No problem.
Regarding the issue of keepers, this is something we need to resolve now. If it's slightly contentious now, imagine how it will be next year when we're dealing with one extra year of ownership versus two. And imagine the year after that. We ought to sort this out as soon as possible.
Already presumed on my part. No problem.
Regarding the issue of keepers, this is something we need to resolve now. If it's slightly contentious now, imagine how it will be next year when we're dealing with one extra year of ownership versus two. And imagine the year after that. We ought to sort this out as soon as possible.
Regarding the issue of keepers, this is something we need to resolve now.
Agreed.
Commish, what say you? Can we vote? Should the Committee look at the issue first?
Agreed.
Commish, what say you? Can we vote? Should the Committee look at the issue first?
I didn't realize that was the way MLB did it. I guess I pay a lot more attention to the NFL draft, and just assumed that was standard. Oh well.
As a side note, can you imagine what the Amateur Draft would be like were there no minor leagues? I certainly don't endorse it -- it's a good system and employs many people -- but the overall entertainment value would be greater in many regards. I'm a pretty big college football fan, so I enjoy watching these players develop and get drafted. There are too many reasons to count as to why this will never happen, but it would be nice if we could watch baseball stars develop in the same way. I live too far away to see many in person, so all of the stars I know are just some words and numbers until that Spring Training tryout.
As a side note, can you imagine what the Amateur Draft would be like were there no minor leagues? I certainly don't endorse it -- it's a good system and employs many people -- but the overall entertainment value would be greater in many regards. I'm a pretty big college football fan, so I enjoy watching these players develop and get drafted. There are too many reasons to count as to why this will never happen, but it would be nice if we could watch baseball stars develop in the same way. I live too far away to see many in person, so all of the stars I know are just some words and numbers until that Spring Training tryout.
http://economics.about.com
Commish, what say you? Can we vote?
Nope. No rule changes until the next voting period. All we can try and do is interpret the rule as it's written.
My interpretation of the current rule is that you can't have a player for more than 3 seasons, parts or whole. So anyone you trade for in the off-season only counts for 2004, not 2003.
Are there other interpretations? That one seems to me to be the logical one.
Cheers,
Mike
Commish, what say you? Can we vote?
Nope. No rule changes until the next voting period. All we can try and do is interpret the rule as it's written.
My interpretation of the current rule is that you can't have a player for more than 3 seasons, parts or whole. So anyone you trade for in the off-season only counts for 2004, not 2003.
Are there other interpretations? That one seems to me to be the logical one.
Cheers,
Mike
So on the third year of ownership for a particular player there's going to be a mad scramble to trade these players and get something for them no? I'm not saying that that's a bad idea but is that a kind of strategic dynamic we envisioned for a keeper league?
If someone has ARod for instance and he's still a great player after three years, are you not held over a barrel to get something for him or lose him to the draft? Or are you forced to think about dealing him after two years of ownership to maximize return? Certainly that's going to be something that's very important for owners to anticipate.
I think certainly the simplest thing to do would be to state that everyone who was drafted in 2003 becomes a free agent after the 2005 season. But I can see why that doesn't necessarily make sense either.
If someone has ARod for instance and he's still a great player after three years, are you not held over a barrel to get something for him or lose him to the draft? Or are you forced to think about dealing him after two years of ownership to maximize return? Certainly that's going to be something that's very important for owners to anticipate.
I think certainly the simplest thing to do would be to state that everyone who was drafted in 2003 becomes a free agent after the 2005 season. But I can see why that doesn't necessarily make sense either.
Or are you forced to think about dealing him after two years of ownership to maximize return?
The thing is, it's not like the real world, in that his contract status changes once he's traded. Alex Rodriguez will be worth less to a team that's owned him for three years, but to teams trading for him he's worth just as much as ever, they'll get to keep him for 3 years. I don't think it'll be a big deal, there will be a lot of players who 'have' to be dealt every year, starting in the 2005 off-season.
The thing is, it's not like the real world, in that his contract status changes once he's traded. Alex Rodriguez will be worth less to a team that's owned him for three years, but to teams trading for him he's worth just as much as ever, they'll get to keep him for 3 years. I don't think it'll be a big deal, there will be a lot of players who 'have' to be dealt every year, starting in the 2005 off-season.
http://economics.about.com
I think certainly the simplest thing to do would be to state that everyone who was drafted in 2003 becomes a free agent after the 2005 season. But I can see why that doesn't necessarily make sense either.
That's not a bad idea. I wish someone would have presented that as a rule change. Unfortunately as our constitution is written, I don't think we can interpret the current rule that way. Here's the current rule (emphasis mine):
Owners may keep a player for a maximum of three seasons, after which time said player must be released back into the draft. That player may be re-drafted by his former owner the following season, however, starting another 3-year cycle. Owners may choose to keep a player for only one year or two instead of the maximum of three, and the owner is not obligated to declare ahead of time how many years he intends to keep a player.
I think Coach's interpretation in message 27 is the correct one.
Cheers,
Mike
I think certainly the simplest thing to do would be to state that everyone who was drafted in 2003 becomes a free agent after the 2005 season. But I can see why that doesn't necessarily make sense either.
That's not a bad idea. I wish someone would have presented that as a rule change. Unfortunately as our constitution is written, I don't think we can interpret the current rule that way. Here's the current rule (emphasis mine):
Owners may keep a player for a maximum of three seasons, after which time said player must be released back into the draft. That player may be re-drafted by his former owner the following season, however, starting another 3-year cycle. Owners may choose to keep a player for only one year or two instead of the maximum of three, and the owner is not obligated to declare ahead of time how many years he intends to keep a player.
I think Coach's interpretation in message 27 is the correct one.
Cheers,
Mike
That is the right interpretation as the rule reads. I just want to make sure I understand it as such.
Jonny, you're right that ARod will still be worth a lot to the team acquiring him, but the simple fact that he would HAVE to be dealt that off-season gives buying teams some leverage. Afterall, you're not going to give up as much if you know the owner can't keep the guy. The selling owner no longer has the leverage of saying I need to get more otherwise I'll just keep him. Instead he can only take the best offer he gets.
It's definately a consideration for both the buying and selling team. And this is a dynamic that I just now realize will exist in the league. I think it's pretty important for everyone to understand.
Jonny, you're right that ARod will still be worth a lot to the team acquiring him, but the simple fact that he would HAVE to be dealt that off-season gives buying teams some leverage. Afterall, you're not going to give up as much if you know the owner can't keep the guy. The selling owner no longer has the leverage of saying I need to get more otherwise I'll just keep him. Instead he can only take the best offer he gets.
It's definately a consideration for both the buying and selling team. And this is a dynamic that I just now realize will exist in the league. I think it's pretty important for everyone to understand.
In addition, it is going to be important to have rosters with each player's "contract status" listed. I.E. Year 1, Year 2, Year 3, Free Agent.
there will be a lot of players who 'have' to be dealt every year, starting in the 2005 off-season
Exactly. Isn't that a good thing? I greatly prefer trading to redistribute the talent over dumping everyone back into the draft every third year.
If our goal had been to create the most realistic league possible, there would be an auction, some kind of salary cap, and contracts would expire. A-Rod would be very expensive, and force you to budget carefully at other positions. In his walk year, you'd be getting whatever you could for him at the deadline, if you weren't in contention. However, that's an administrative nightmare, and an Internet auction can take weeks, unlike our two hour draft. Much of this discussion is reminiscent of the Rules Committee debates last year. We valued simplicity, but didn't want whoever got first pick in Year One to be able to own that player until his retirement.
The rules as they are guarantee movement of superstars from team to team. Because they can be traded, they aren't likely to come back onto the market often. This rewards success -- if you've assembled a strong team, you presumably have more trade leverage. Weaker teams that avoid relegation, and the new owners from the Barfield division, won't be able to draft the best overall player(s) each year, merely the best available, so in theory, we won't see the standings turn upside down from one season to the next.
It's not a perfect system, nor an authentic imitation of MLB, but the "strategic dynamic" seems to be working. I think we'll see plenty of minor trades during the season, as owners tweak their teams in one category or another, and the annual winter meetings will produce more blockbuster deals involving keeper candidates. It seems challenging enough, and it's certainly fun.
Exactly. Isn't that a good thing? I greatly prefer trading to redistribute the talent over dumping everyone back into the draft every third year.
If our goal had been to create the most realistic league possible, there would be an auction, some kind of salary cap, and contracts would expire. A-Rod would be very expensive, and force you to budget carefully at other positions. In his walk year, you'd be getting whatever you could for him at the deadline, if you weren't in contention. However, that's an administrative nightmare, and an Internet auction can take weeks, unlike our two hour draft. Much of this discussion is reminiscent of the Rules Committee debates last year. We valued simplicity, but didn't want whoever got first pick in Year One to be able to own that player until his retirement.
The rules as they are guarantee movement of superstars from team to team. Because they can be traded, they aren't likely to come back onto the market often. This rewards success -- if you've assembled a strong team, you presumably have more trade leverage. Weaker teams that avoid relegation, and the new owners from the Barfield division, won't be able to draft the best overall player(s) each year, merely the best available, so in theory, we won't see the standings turn upside down from one season to the next.
It's not a perfect system, nor an authentic imitation of MLB, but the "strategic dynamic" seems to be working. I think we'll see plenty of minor trades during the season, as owners tweak their teams in one category or another, and the annual winter meetings will produce more blockbuster deals involving keeper candidates. It seems challenging enough, and it's certainly fun.
A few notes:
Mike dictated a trading window of Feb 14-Feb 28, but there's a 29th day this month. Any problem with having the deadline be the 29th? Assuming that's okay, I'd say that trades must be posted to the email list no later than midnight PST on the 29th to be valid. After that, rosters are locked until the draft. Again, any problem with that?
I'll post the most recent trades on the BBFL site when I get home from work. When a keeper is traded, I have NOT listed that player as a keeper for his new team. Sounds silly, but I don't want to presume to make decisions for other owners. Maybe Coach trades for Joe Shlabotnik and then decides he doesn't want to keep him.
In any case, the keeper list is just preliminary at the moment. The declaration period is March 1-4 with keepers locked on March 25.
As owners declare keepers, I'll put the year of ownership for each player in parentheses. For example, I'm keeping Albert Pujols, so he'll be listed as
Albert Pujols (2)
meaning that 2004 is his second year of ownership. The recently traded Alex Rodriguez will have a (1) by his name. Come 2005, any keeper with a (3) must be traded after the 2005 season or spit back into the pool for the 2006 draft.
Dropping and re-drafting a player renews the 3-year cycle, by the way.
Mike dictated a trading window of Feb 14-Feb 28, but there's a 29th day this month. Any problem with having the deadline be the 29th? Assuming that's okay, I'd say that trades must be posted to the email list no later than midnight PST on the 29th to be valid. After that, rosters are locked until the draft. Again, any problem with that?
I'll post the most recent trades on the BBFL site when I get home from work. When a keeper is traded, I have NOT listed that player as a keeper for his new team. Sounds silly, but I don't want to presume to make decisions for other owners. Maybe Coach trades for Joe Shlabotnik and then decides he doesn't want to keep him.
In any case, the keeper list is just preliminary at the moment. The declaration period is March 1-4 with keepers locked on March 25.
As owners declare keepers, I'll put the year of ownership for each player in parentheses. For example, I'm keeping Albert Pujols, so he'll be listed as
Albert Pujols (2)
meaning that 2004 is his second year of ownership. The recently traded Alex Rodriguez will have a (1) by his name. Come 2005, any keeper with a (3) must be traded after the 2005 season or spit back into the pool for the 2006 draft.
Dropping and re-drafting a player renews the 3-year cycle, by the way.
Also, on Monday I'll start a BBFL thread noting all the trades and giving us an opportunity to declare keepers.
http://economics.about.com
Mike dictated a trading window of Feb 14-Feb 28, but there's a 29th day this month. Any problem with having the deadline be the 29th?
Sure.. sounds good. Maybe I should change it to "last day in February" so we don't have this problem again in 2008. :)
Cheers,
Mike
Mike dictated a trading window of Feb 14-Feb 28, but there's a 29th day this month. Any problem with having the deadline be the 29th?
Sure.. sounds good. Maybe I should change it to "last day in February" so we don't have this problem again in 2008. :)
Cheers,
Mike
Trade announcement: Miguel Tejada to Jick's Rays, Chipper Jones and Jeff Bagwell to K-Town.
If anyone has a good starting pitcher to trade, I'm offering one of:
Nick Johnson
Jeff Bagwell
Chipper Jones
And one of:
Corey Koskie
Jason Isringhausen
Melvin Mora
Tim Salmon
If anyone has a good starting pitcher to trade, I'm offering one of:
Nick Johnson
Jeff Bagwell
Chipper Jones
And one of:
Corey Koskie
Jason Isringhausen
Melvin Mora
Tim Salmon
There was a trade yesterday as well!
Jick's trades Jose Reyes to Garces not on roids for Kevin Brown.
Jick's didn't want to give up the future 20 hr, 30sb phenom, but couldn't pass on Brown. Nice one-two punch with Pedro.
Thomas is still available for a young phenom to replace previous young phenom. Thanks, Rick out:0
Jick's trades Jose Reyes to Garces not on roids for Kevin Brown.
Jick's didn't want to give up the future 20 hr, 30sb phenom, but couldn't pass on Brown. Nice one-two punch with Pedro.
Thomas is still available for a young phenom to replace previous young phenom. Thanks, Rick out:0
There was a trade yesterday as well!
Jick's trades Jose Reyes to Garces not on roids for Kevin Brown.
Jick's didn't want to give up the future 20 hr, 30sb phenom, but couldn't pass on Brown. Nice one-two punch with Pedro.
Thomas is still available for a young phenom to replace previous young phenom. Thanks, Rick out:0
Jick's trades Jose Reyes to Garces not on roids for Kevin Brown.
Jick's didn't want to give up the future 20 hr, 30sb phenom, but couldn't pass on Brown. Nice one-two punch with Pedro.
Thomas is still available for a young phenom to replace previous young phenom. Thanks, Rick out:0
Sure.. sounds good. Maybe I should change it to "last day in February" so we don't have this problem again in 2008.
Um, I don't mean to be a jerk about this, but why can we change that and not look at the 3-year keeper rule (which most of the league apparently had either forgotten about or never really realised it was there in the first place)?
A rule change is a rule change is a rule change.
BTW, I'm in favour of Lucas' proposal. I'm just saying.
Um, I don't mean to be a jerk about this, but why can we change that and not look at the 3-year keeper rule (which most of the league apparently had either forgotten about or never really realised it was there in the first place)?
A rule change is a rule change is a rule change.
BTW, I'm in favour of Lucas' proposal. I'm just saying.
http://economics.about.com
A rule change is a rule change is a rule change.
I haven't changed any rules. It's just that now Feb. 29th is now an open spot on the calendar, and the intent of the rule was to have the trade deadline go until the end of February. My comment was more to do with how we'd re-write the rule in the future.
If you want to be pedantic and cut the trade deadline off on the 28th, fine. But we're not changing any rules now. Period.
Mike
A rule change is a rule change is a rule change.
I haven't changed any rules. It's just that now Feb. 29th is now an open spot on the calendar, and the intent of the rule was to have the trade deadline go until the end of February. My comment was more to do with how we'd re-write the rule in the future.
If you want to be pedantic and cut the trade deadline off on the 28th, fine. But we're not changing any rules now. Period.
Mike
It's not a perfect system, nor an authentic imitation of MLB, but the "strategic dynamic" seems to be working.
Exactly. I love the planning required by the current format.
As long as everyone operates under the same rule, and it is equally fair to all owners, why do we need to change it? I've seen no legitmate reason behind why we should revisit it. The closest we've come to a reason was "it could be an administrative nightmare" but our administrator doesn't seem to mind.
Exactly. I love the planning required by the current format.
As long as everyone operates under the same rule, and it is equally fair to all owners, why do we need to change it? I've seen no legitmate reason behind why we should revisit it. The closest we've come to a reason was "it could be an administrative nightmare" but our administrator doesn't seem to mind.
3-year keeper rule (which most of the league apparently had either forgotten about or never really realised it was there in the first place)
I'm not sure who all you're speaking for, because only Moffatt has stated anything to that effect. I think it was spelled out perfectly clearly when the league was started and serves a useful purpose.
I'm not sure who all you're speaking for, because only Moffatt has stated anything to that effect. I think it was spelled out perfectly clearly when the league was started and serves a useful purpose.
Fine, fine. We'll be the league that sticks to our Constitution.
http://economics.about.com
I'm not sure who all you're speaking for, because only Moffatt has stated anything to that effect.
There's also the additional caveat that most days I can hardly remember my own name, so the fact that I forgot about something should hardly be taken as evidence about how memorable something is.
Cheers,
Mike
I'm not sure who all you're speaking for, because only Moffatt has stated anything to that effect.
There's also the additional caveat that most days I can hardly remember my own name, so the fact that I forgot about something should hardly be taken as evidence about how memorable something is.
Cheers,
Mike
http://economics.about.com
I sent out an e-mail, but PLEASE NOTE that we will be adhering to a strict interpretation of the rules, THUS THE TRADE DEADLINE ENDS ON THE 28TH!!!! Get your trades in before 11:59 PM EST on Saturday, or else they won't count. Unless you pay me a whole lot of money.
Cheers,
Mike
I sent out an e-mail, but PLEASE NOTE that we will be adhering to a strict interpretation of the rules, THUS THE TRADE DEADLINE ENDS ON THE 28TH!!!! Get your trades in before 11:59 PM EST on Saturday, or else they won't count. Unless you pay me a whole lot of money.
Cheers,
Mike
I think we were all clear that the league was a 3 year keeper league. I don't think everyone (for example me) necessarily thought about whether a player's 3 year contract would be automatically renewed upon being traded. I was just looking for a clarification is all. I know in some keeper leagues everyone goes back into the free agency pool after the third year.
Wow, I feel like an idiot, because I completely forgot there was a three-year limit.
I'll renew my complaints during the next rule change season.
I'll renew my complaints during the next rule change season.