Post by jumpngeorge on Apr 29, 2022 17:47:24 GMT
I’ve been working on the rules committee and there one rule that I strongly disagree with. I think it’s a lousy rule because it treats team differently based on the current state of their farm roster.
Here are a few examples
Team A has his D farm spot open. He acquires another teams C farm player in a trade. Next spring, if his roster is in this same condition, the farm player he acquire would occupy the D slot and he wouldn’t get a draft pick.
Same situation only Team A’s B round player has to activated or waived the next Spring in this case the player acquired will slide up to B round and Team A gets a 4th round pick. This highlights one problem I have the rule. You don’t know at the time of the trade the actual cost/value of the trade.
Team B has his B and D spot open, he acquires another teams C slot player in trade. Next spring the acquired player slides in to the B slot and team B drafts in the 4th round. This highlight another. Two teams can make an identical trade but derive different values because of the condition of their farm rosters.
Basically the rule says that if you have two players on your farm roster who were drafted in the same round, the spot the extra player occupies in determining the following year’s draft picks is as close to the original spot as possible. If you have two open spots the same distance from the original, the player will be placed in the higher slot.
This rule came into play for me this season. Last year I made a lot of trades. A few of them included farm players. I also had to activate my A and one of my 2 D round players. I had acquired Schmidt as a second C band player for my E round Trevor Larnach. B and E were open; Schmidt had go in the B round. True I could have activated Schmidt, but acquiring a pitcher who might be good that I can activate at any time was part of why agreed on the deal. So because of the rule I ended up with a 5th pick instead of the second round pick I expected. Didn’t really raise a stink about it, but while working on the rules committee, it became clear that there are the rule.
I’m the only one on the committee who has a problem with this rule. They are all frankly tired of hearing my opinions about it. I don’t like that teams are treated differently based on the state of their farm roster in the spring. I don’t like that the conditions of a trade can altered by this rule if your farm roster is different the following spring than it was the time of the deal. None of them having explained why writing a rule that treats teams differently and makes it impossible to know the true cost of a trade when you are negotiating the deal is a good idea!?
So what do I want instead?
If a team acquires a farm player in a trade of an active player, he farm player will be place in an empty spot on team that receives him.
If farm players are traded, they will be placed in the draft slot occupied by the other.
While the draft slots may be changed as a result of a trade the original salary of the farm player would remain the same
There is some talk of allowing teams to acquire more than 5 farm players, but the following season they would only be able to freeze 5 on the farm roster.
Here are a few examples
Team A has his D farm spot open. He acquires another teams C farm player in a trade. Next spring, if his roster is in this same condition, the farm player he acquire would occupy the D slot and he wouldn’t get a draft pick.
Same situation only Team A’s B round player has to activated or waived the next Spring in this case the player acquired will slide up to B round and Team A gets a 4th round pick. This highlights one problem I have the rule. You don’t know at the time of the trade the actual cost/value of the trade.
Team B has his B and D spot open, he acquires another teams C slot player in trade. Next spring the acquired player slides in to the B slot and team B drafts in the 4th round. This highlight another. Two teams can make an identical trade but derive different values because of the condition of their farm rosters.
Basically the rule says that if you have two players on your farm roster who were drafted in the same round, the spot the extra player occupies in determining the following year’s draft picks is as close to the original spot as possible. If you have two open spots the same distance from the original, the player will be placed in the higher slot.
This rule came into play for me this season. Last year I made a lot of trades. A few of them included farm players. I also had to activate my A and one of my 2 D round players. I had acquired Schmidt as a second C band player for my E round Trevor Larnach. B and E were open; Schmidt had go in the B round. True I could have activated Schmidt, but acquiring a pitcher who might be good that I can activate at any time was part of why agreed on the deal. So because of the rule I ended up with a 5th pick instead of the second round pick I expected. Didn’t really raise a stink about it, but while working on the rules committee, it became clear that there are the rule.
I’m the only one on the committee who has a problem with this rule. They are all frankly tired of hearing my opinions about it. I don’t like that teams are treated differently based on the state of their farm roster in the spring. I don’t like that the conditions of a trade can altered by this rule if your farm roster is different the following spring than it was the time of the deal. None of them having explained why writing a rule that treats teams differently and makes it impossible to know the true cost of a trade when you are negotiating the deal is a good idea!?
So what do I want instead?
If a team acquires a farm player in a trade of an active player, he farm player will be place in an empty spot on team that receives him.
If farm players are traded, they will be placed in the draft slot occupied by the other.
While the draft slots may be changed as a result of a trade the original salary of the farm player would remain the same
There is some talk of allowing teams to acquire more than 5 farm players, but the following season they would only be able to freeze 5 on the farm roster.