|
Post by navycmc on Apr 20, 2024 9:56:59 GMT -8
I know technically by rules it’s legal, but have multiple pitchers under 50ip and rotating them out until their 50ip is gaming the rules and not fair play. This should be addressed in the rules.
|
|
|
Post by kamisbrown on Apr 20, 2024 10:25:21 GMT -8
You're the first person to complain about this in the 8 years I've been in this league. IRL, MLB teams bring players up and down multiple times in a season if they have options. Not a lot different. In our league, eventually the players reach league minimum and a permanent choice has to be made.
|
|
|
Post by navycmc on Apr 20, 2024 11:03:16 GMT -8
In the majors a pitcher that is in starting rotation for a team is not sent to minors in between starts.
|
|
|
Post by navycmc on Apr 20, 2024 11:11:41 GMT -8
There was a time in this league the player had to be NA by the team to be placed on milb. I know the rule was changed a few years ago and I’m merely pointing it out for the league to reconsider the rule.
|
|
|
Post by john on Apr 20, 2024 16:16:12 GMT -8
I see your point,but it really is just a short term issue it will have to end rather quickly, I think it’s just good roster management
|
|
|
Post by Milt on Apr 20, 2024 16:39:19 GMT -8
When we changed it a few years ago due to the COVID pandemic with how MLB was treating it we decided it would be more realistic like MLB does for players getting called up just for a spot start and so teams could reach the weekly minimum for IP. It’s actually more work for the BOD with the spreadsheet but eventually they’ll run out of that option for a pitcher once they reach the 50 IP limit. It’s really come into play the last few seasons as GMs will sign players via free agency and use them for spot starts to build up the stats for the W in some categories as we use a lot of totals for categories each week. It’s within the Rules but that’s not what the Rule was intended for. It’s become a strategy that I’m not fond of but not sure that the BOD feels the same way about it? It will be discussed in the next Winter Meetings though and see what we can agree on for an even fair league play going forward. The one year contract may not be renewed next year because of these type of issues depending on what the league thinks as a whole. I’m willing to listen to all sides on this subject.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
|
|
|
Post by navycmc on Apr 20, 2024 16:44:25 GMT -8
Thanks Milt,
That was all I was asking for, a review for next year. My opinion on 1 year blue contracts is to leave as is. With so many players going in IL now, a 1 year option is a good tool to manage salary.
|
|
|
Post by kamisbrown on Apr 20, 2024 17:07:02 GMT -8
There was a time in this league the player had to be NA by the team to be placed on milb. I know the rule was changed a few years ago and I’m merely pointing it out for the league to reconsider the rule. When was this? I've been in the league longer than you and don't remember anything like that. And as far as fairness, everyone in the league can do this, so no one has an advantage. Some teams may have more prospects they can move than other teams, but that's to their credit.
|
|
|
Post by Milt on Apr 20, 2024 17:55:53 GMT -8
I’ve been in the league since 2007
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
|
|
|
Post by kamisbrown on Apr 20, 2024 18:36:30 GMT -8
And when were we only allowed to put NA designated players on NA list? The rule change in 2020 was allowing players with MORE than 50/130 to be on the list, plus we expanded from 14 to 20 to reflect the MLB alternate training site and expanded rosters. We never discussed not allowing NA list players to be moved up and down frequently. That's never been a discussion.
|
|
bobby2z
Board of Directors
Posts: 556
|
Post by bobby2z on Apr 20, 2024 19:33:33 GMT -8
I don't see this as an issue.
As guys get called up and became MLB players, there is no set path to playing time and each players initial experience is different. Some are in the lineup from day 1 and are in the lineup for good, some get sporadic playing time then sent back down. The 130ab/50ip limits allow a manager to use those guys for a large enough sample size that they can make an educated decision on if they are viable players to keep as they lose NA eligibility.
All 20 teams have the exact same opportunity to use the roster to their advantage until the rookie limits have been met and a decision has to be made to keep/trade/cut the player
|
|
|
Post by Milt on Apr 20, 2024 23:46:12 GMT -8
And when were we only allowed to put NA designated players on NA list? The rule change in 2020 was allowing players with MORE than 50/130 to be on the list, plus we expanded from 14 to 20 to reflect the MLB alternate training site and expanded rosters. We never discussed not allowing NA list players to be moved up and down frequently. That's never been a discussion. Gordon I don’t believe that is what I was saying about NA players. It’s always been until they reach the rookie limits before a decision was required to be made on a player. We didn’t allow teams to send down a player while they were an active MLB player before Covid. You used to keep them on your MLB roster until they got sent down to the Minors in MLB. Now that changed with Covid and it stayed after Covid for the reasons I mentioned before. But it seems to me at least that some GMs are looking for ways to kind of get around the rules since it’s not specifically against the rules to use the loophole to their advantage by bidding on prospects with the intent to use them temporarily with spot starts or open dates they don’t have their regulars playing that day and sending the player back down the next day. That’s sidestepping the rules plain and simple. It’s not illegal by rules definition but it doesn’t mean it’s okay morally either. With the new buyout rule giving teams a chance to lessen the burden on their team’s salary cap long term you’ll be sure some will use it accordingly and for their advantage too. We’ll take a look at it after the season to see which is the case. Each GM sees this differently I guess, but all rules are reviewable each offseason. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
|
|
brad
Board of Directors
Posts: 1,068
|
Post by brad on Apr 21, 2024 7:51:26 GMT -8
In my three years this has been common practice by top teams including myself, this leaguec is interactive and anything but set it and forget league.
For commissioner to imply we ate skirting the rules is disappointing as this is not a new practice and as noted well within the documented rules.
|
|