|
Post by Brewers GM(Mike) on Jun 21, 2012 9:32:21 GMT -6
Well. If we are waiting on phillies or Bo sox they won't be weighing bc they haven't been checking. I do think that these guys on the trade committee need to be more active or relieved of their duties for managers that are.
|
|
|
Post by Cardinals GM(Jared) on Jun 21, 2012 10:12:24 GMT -6
Well. If we are waiting on phillies or Bo sox they won't be weighing bc they haven't been checking. I do think that these guys on the trade committee need to be more active or relieved of their duties for managers that are. agree...it shouldn't be a life time appointment haha! CHANGE! LOL
|
|
|
Post by Colorado Rockies GM(John) on Jun 21, 2012 11:20:17 GMT -6
Not sure what this has to do with the trade itself. Its the clarification on the rule that we are looking for. I think it is just mis-written in that thread that was posted. It should say "before they reach rookie contract" not "rookie threshold".
|
|
|
Post by Cardinals GM(Jared) on Jun 21, 2012 11:33:25 GMT -6
Not sure what this has to do with the trade itself. Its the clarification on the rule that we are looking for. I think it is just mis-written in that thread that was posted. It should say "before they reach rookie contract" not "rookie threshold". Agree and I believe it should also only be allowed in the off season just like the last year buy out option
|
|
|
Post by Brewers GM(Mike) on Jun 21, 2012 11:55:34 GMT -6
So why is this trade being voted on?
Shouldn't the commish just clarify this rule for us. And if further stipulations need to be added to this rule to clarify it more shouldn't that be voted on in the offseason, if desired.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 21, 2012 12:17:48 GMT -6
What's wrong with Promoting a Guy in season if he reaches it or not?? You just have to make sure U have Available spot,,,, IF U want him to be on the Roster cause U have space it doesn't matter It's UR Team anyways,,, If U Cut a prospect or a guy that has been Promoted Ur not going to get penalized anyways,,,
So let's see If I got this right:
If I would want to Promote Cozart, Flaherty and or Elbert ur saying I cannot promote them INSEASON NOW??? When I could Cut some Guys like Morneau or Thornthon etc to make Room for them??? That way I ALSO make room in the Minors INSTEAD of just Cutting a Minors guy U can promote him easily and If he Doesn't panout I can just Cut Flaherty I ALWAYS Thought it was like this!!
|
|
|
Post by Atlanta Braves GM(T.J.) on Jun 21, 2012 13:51:50 GMT -6
Alrighty! I let you all duke it out for long enough. Yes the rule does not saying anything for or against an in season start to a rookie contract. When this rule was discussed this type of scenario was never thought of. Well now it is here. So the rule will be clarified:
"A GM may move a prospect to their MLB team roster in season or during the offseason as long as they have an open spot on their 35 man roster. This can also be acheived by making a corresponding drop from said roster. In doing so they will immediately start at the $1 price."
Yankees - I understand your point however if a gm is willing to forgo a free year of rookie eligibilty and a roster spot just to create room for another prospect. That is their choice.
Trade stands as the veto was based solely on the interpretation of the rule and not for collusion.
|
|
|
Post by New York Yankees GM(Tommy) on Jun 21, 2012 15:48:53 GMT -6
I honestly don't have much of a dog in this fight I was just reading the rules as I thought they were written but I do want to be the devil's advocate here. This new rules opens up a loophole for stacking minor leaguers. The reason we even had a minor league limit , and has now been voted on twice, was because of owners possibly stacking their minors system. With this new loophole if an owner drops out of the race early he can have 30-40 minor leaguers on his team. You can say he loses a year but if he stacks his team with september call ups who he knows will be on major league rosters next year we are looking at teams that can have 40 minor leaguers which is exactly why we have had two votes now to keep it at 20. This opens up some major issues in my opinion but whatever you guys decide. (to me it's like the MLB rule where a guy has to be on the 40 man by a certain date to quality for the postseason)
I'd be on board with allowing this trade because of the wording but fixing the loophole over the offseason before this bites us in the ass
|
|
|
Post by Red Sox GM(Landon) on Jun 21, 2012 16:10:52 GMT -6
I agree that we should be able to call up players mid season but I also see Yanks point about how this could allow stacked minor league teams. There needs to be some kind if limit to the call ups. Not those that just come up through the rookie threshold but the players that are moved up early. Put the limit of prospects plus early call ups at 30 or something like that. That will allow teams who want to rebuild a leg up without allowing completely stacking and hoarding of minor leaguers.
|
|
|
Post by Cincinnati Reds (Mike) on Jun 27, 2012 10:49:56 GMT -6
I know I'm late to the party, but I have no problem with Indians' move here. He's losing a year of control on McGee to stay under the prospect limit.
I actually am not that worried about people stacking their teams with prospects either. First, the guys who are activated are going to be available to the rest of the league (via free agency) sooner. Second, it's not like anyone has the equivalent of 20 Bryce Harpers on their team. Anyone who ranks as the 19th or 20th best prospect on a team in our league wouldn't even crack a Top 200 list of prospects. Guys who are filling out the prospect lists (or having the rookie contracts start) are people like McGee, Casey Crosby and Todd Frazier. Why is it an issue to use MLB spots like that, when the alternative is signing guys like Barry Zito or Miguel Cairo?
|
|
|
Post by Atlanta Braves GM(T.J.) on Jun 30, 2012 18:11:30 GMT -6
Indians get: Jake Marisnick AJ Cole Rockies get: Jay Bruce dropping Todd Helton updated
|
|