Indians GM
Transactions Board
Posts: 346
Staff Member
|
Questions
Nov 4, 2013 17:17:44 GMT -5
via mobile
Post by Indians GM on Nov 4, 2013 17:17:44 GMT -5
Sorry, they also go up again on mar1st.
|
|
|
Post by Nationals GM on Nov 22, 2013 18:22:03 GMT -5
This just happened in another league I'm in:
Matt Joyce was in multiple transactions, including being called up to the majors and being traded.
His contract in those transactions was (2014) when it should have been (2013).
Somehow, the transactions board missed this in a crap-ton of transactions.
What would happen in this league if: Nationals trade for a guy who has a (2014) contract and later it's discovered his contract is (2013). Answer: Nationals would have to change the contract to (2013).
All owners are responsible for making sure their contract years are correct. Especially in trades.
You would be right to think I'd have some really strong conversations with our board if we missed an error multiple times. It's not acceptable for a board to approve a transaction with errors, and the board would need to fix its process to make sure more errors didn't keep slipping through. But the risk is on the GM to make sure his contracts are correct.
|
|
|
Post by Marlins GM on Nov 22, 2013 20:13:00 GMT -5
This just happened in another league I'm in: Matt Joyce was in multiple transactions, including being called up to the majors and being traded. His contract in those transactions was (2014) when it should have been (2013). Somehow, the transactions board missed this in a crap-ton of transactions. What would happen in this league if: Nationals trade for a guy who has a (2014) contract and later it's discovered his contract is (2013). Answer: Nationals would have to change the contract to (2013). All owners are responsible for making sure their contract years are correct. Especially in trades. You would be right to think I'd have some really strong conversations with our board if we missed an error multiple times. It's not acceptable for a board to approve a transaction with errors, and the board would need to fix its process to make sure more errors didn't keep slipping through. But the risk is on the GM to make sure his contracts are correct. Would that be the league that allows teams to continue using traded away players against you? And also allows team to waive players and even watch the get claimed and approved for the new team but the old team continues to use him? Of course, no penalties there for this. Yes, haha, I'm familiar with that league. Agreed 100% with you. The TAB over there missed the contract year a million times. But even with that said, each individual GM has to keep up with his own players. If I were to trade for an expiring contract, its really my own dumbassness for doing so and not checking it out before I agreed to it. The TAB in mistakenly approving it would just join me in Stupidville that week. Yes, I would have to eat that transaction. lol.
|
|
|
Post by Nationals GM on Nov 23, 2013 2:08:54 GMT -5
This just happened in another league I'm in: Matt Joyce was in multiple transactions, including being called up to the majors and being traded. His contract in those transactions was (2014) when it should have been (2013). Somehow, the transactions board missed this in a crap-ton of transactions. What would happen in this league if: Nationals trade for a guy who has a (2014) contract and later it's discovered his contract is (2013). Answer: Nationals would have to change the contract to (2013). All owners are responsible for making sure their contract years are correct. Especially in trades. You would be right to think I'd have some really strong conversations with our board if we missed an error multiple times. It's not acceptable for a board to approve a transaction with errors, and the board would need to fix its process to make sure more errors didn't keep slipping through. But the risk is on the GM to make sure his contracts are correct. Would that be the league that allows teams to continue using traded away players against you? And also allows team to waive players and even watch the get claimed and approved for the new team but the old team continues to use him? Of course, no penalties there for this. Yes, haha, I'm familiar with that league. Agreed 100% with you. The TAB over there missed the contract year a million times. But even with that said, each individual GM has to keep up with his own players. If I were to trade for an expiring contract, its really my own dumbassness for doing so and not checking it out before I agreed to it. The TAB in mistakenly approving it would just join me in Stupidville that week. Yes, I would have to eat that transaction. lol. Haha, yes I think you know the league!
|
|
|
Post by Mets GM on Nov 23, 2013 12:01:31 GMT -5
What about adding some 'small ball'?
Sacrifices, Field Chances, Assists, Errors, Double Plays Turned ...I have never been in a league where an emphasis was also placed on the other peripherals that usually don't get used as much in fantasy play. They are not 'sexy' stats, but, it allows for owners and teams to win in other ways than the fantasy norm of power pitching, power bats, etc...players as Iglesias, Ryan, etc...will become more relevant with their defensive prowess.
thoughts ...
|
|
|
Post by Nationals GM on Nov 23, 2013 12:41:17 GMT -5
Scoring categories isn't something we'll change soon. If the league really wants to add in a defensive category, I'm open to that but we'd need to agree on it and give the league at least a year, maybe two, before we add it so that GMs can plan. We'd also need to add a pitching cat for every position player cat we add.
|
|
|
Post by Mets GM on Nov 26, 2013 23:06:33 GMT -5
confirmation, please ...
greg burke rp
did he sign with another team? i have him as nym, but think he recently signed elsewhere. ty. having internet troubles.
|
|
|
Post by Nationals GM on Nov 27, 2013 0:22:14 GMT -5
confirmation, please ... greg burke rp did he sign with another team? i have him as nym, but think he recently signed elsewhere. ty. having internet troubles. In this league Mets own him, but fangraphs had him signing with the Rockies
|
|
|
Post by Old Rockies GM on Dec 11, 2013 7:46:56 GMT -5
Drew Pomeranz was not on my starter roster, but it seems he was under the Rockies control last year having played in 8 games for them. Do I control the rights for him now that he has been traded to Oakland? And do I still control the rights to Chris Jensen?
Thanks, Joe
|
|
Cubs GM
Senior Board
Posts: 449
Staff Member
|
Post by Cubs GM on Dec 11, 2013 10:22:37 GMT -5
Checking on Pom if he played for Rox before starter roster date he is Rox property...
|
|
Cubs GM
Senior Board
Posts: 449
Staff Member
|
Post by Cubs GM on Dec 11, 2013 10:30:47 GMT -5
Pomeranz 2017 is Rox property Jensen is also Rox property
|
|
|
Post by Nationals GM on Dec 11, 2013 12:44:56 GMT -5
By the letter of our rules, Pomeranz looks like Indians property to me (did not play a game with Rox in 2013 before starter rosters were set). The intent of our rules was to put MLB established guys with the teams they were established with and all the guys who were not MLB established would be returned to their first franchises. Pomeranz started 22 games with the Rox in 2012 so obviously he was established with them. This is a case where the codification of the rule failed the intent of the rule. Usually we will go with the codification of the rule to avoid arbitrary rulings (the blame then would go onto me for not doing a good enough job of codifying our rules).
I'll talk with the board about this.
|
|
|
Post by Old Rockies GM on Dec 11, 2013 15:21:22 GMT -5
That makes sense to me. I lose a player, but I see the value in sticking to a policy. Thanks for the response.
|
|
Cubs GM
Senior Board
Posts: 449
Staff Member
|
Post by Cubs GM on Dec 11, 2013 15:57:04 GMT -5
Good catch Nats
|
|
|
Post by Old Rockies GM on Dec 12, 2013 3:42:10 GMT -5
By the letter of our rules, Pomeranz looks like Indians property to me (did not play a game with Rox in 2013 before starter rosters were set). The intent of our rules was to put MLB established guys with the teams they were established with and all the guys who were not MLB established would be returned to their first franchises. Pomeranz started 22 games with the Rox in 2012 so obviously he was established with them. This is a case where the codification of the rule failed the intent of the rule. Usually we will go with the codification of the rule to avoid arbitrary rulings (the blame then would go onto me for not doing a good enough job of codifying our rules). I'll talk with the board about this. One question about this, however. If all the players who were not MLB established by June 9 need to be returned to their first franchises, is it up to the GMs to find out who in their minor league systems were originally drafted by another organization? For example, if Pedro Prospect was traded from the Rockies to the Phillies on July 12, 2010 and never once saw the majors, is he Rockies' property? Is it the responsibility of the Rockies, Phillies, or both GMs to figure this out? Thanks! Joe
|
|