Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 4, 2014 5:17:29 GMT -5
I knew this was close and expected Stephen to, either dispute or give me kudos for just beating the official trade announcement. I'm not sure why it took him 3 weeks? I can only apologise for the delay. You might not think it because of how active I keep on this board, but in real lift I am mind-bogglingly lazy. I am the Mike Trout, the Hank Aaron, the Pedro Martinez, the Barry Bonds (on PEDs) of laziness. And come up with the exact time window, maybe a 10 minute window, an hour. I'm not all about every team having to protect tons of prospects in fear of losing one, I just lost Barreto and was upset about it. I'm more in favor of giving an hour window to the team with the prospect to protect them. Would also encourage more activity by owners, to stay alert. I don't think I agree with this. I do not think that owners who have the opportunity and the luck to have ready access to breaking news and the league board should be rewarded with a window to allow them to retroactively protect traded prospects. We have active owners who fulfill all their duties by logging on once a day - they should not be punished if they do not have the same levels of access and availability as some other owners. I think that this is an aspect of roster management where each team owner should be in a position where they have to choose where to allocate their cap. They have a choice between protecting prospects from their own organisation (and allocating cap to do so) or leaving them unprotected (allocating cap to their major league roster or non-organisational prospects) and risk losing their home-grown prospects if they are traded in real life. Theoretically, allowing a window would allow an owner with instantaneous access to breaking news and the league board effective protected status of all prospects within their own organisation at no cost. This would be a large advantage over teams who would not have that facility, who would be allocating cap space to protect their own prospects with the same result. We obviously need to work to address this for any future instances by updating rule 7.6: The rule should be clarified to define the sources we will use to determine an official trade time. Agree wholeheartedly. You know I love me some rules. I think using Twitter as on official source is ok, but who's twitter? -MLB -MLBRosterMoves -Team A -Team B -Any of the above? I think this is a good list. Is MLBRosterMoves 'official'? I might suggest adding rotoworld's website as they seem to be fairly on the ball around the clock, and would possibly provide another independent source in case one (or both) of the team twitter feeds are not as active as others. I'm curious to hear if the Brits & think they're at a disadvantage in these scenarios due to the time difference. I appreciate the concern, but baseball seems to be a 24hr business. I can't speak for everyone outside the US, but I really don't feel punished or affected by not being in the same timezone as the transactions taking place. My first thoughts on a solution: I wonder whether roster protects should be approved by TTC? Perhaps two confirmations instead of the three needed for trades, but I think we have a really strong TTC who could do this efficiently without it being a major drain on their time. My thinking behind this is that we went to great lengths in the off-season to check that rosters and salaries/contracts are correct, and then we have an effective open door for inaccuracies through the current protect system. A roster protect check could include: Check the player name spelling Check the contract is correct (for 4th-6th) Check that the number of times the player has been protected this season is recorded and accurate Check that the team has the cap space for the protect Check that the team have rights to the player I would suggest that TTC checks of player protects be retrospective - as in they are an insurance/sanity check rather than an approval check. A protected player could be instantly added to the roster page (and active ESPN lineup if applicable) with TTC checking it out over the next day or two - allowing the team both instant access to the player (either to add them to their ESPN lineup, or perhaps to protect a player who is rumoured to be included in a trade that has not yet been announced) and the league a way to check that the transaction is legit. Floor... open.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 4, 2014 5:28:00 GMT -5
Also - should I move this thread to the General board, or would we like to discuss it further before bringing in the rest of the league?
|
|
phronesis
TTC Member
Posts: 752
Favorite Baseball Team: Atlanta Braves
|
Post by phronesis on Dec 4, 2014 5:47:45 GMT -5
I'm a full 9 hours ahead of EST here in Oman, which sometimes works to my advantage (I'm 'up' in the early hours each day looking at news) but mostly to my disadvantage (I'm asleep by 3pm EST most days).
My two cents; I don't really think protecting a prospect should be a reactionary move to thwart your IRL team's moves. Protecting a prospect who's rumored to be on the move makes sense, but once a deal is finalized it's too late. You essentially are trying to eat your cake and have it too. You don't want to waste cap space on your own but still retain the rights to any player moved. I wouldn't be against a grace period (even with the disadvantages awarded to a few of us who live outside the States), but I would probably vote for a twitter timestamp finalization process--however we choose to enforce it/whoever we choose as the deal-defining tweet.
There's also a problem with physicals and such when determining when a deal is finished, but I guess a tweet announcing the deal pending physicals would suffice as the 'finalization' of the deal, if only to keep it simple.
|
|
phronesis
TTC Member
Posts: 752
Favorite Baseball Team: Atlanta Braves
|
Post by phronesis on Dec 4, 2014 5:52:35 GMT -5
Ah, didn't read the second page before posting.
I don't think we need TTC approval process for protects outside of the 4th-6th multiple protect scenario. It seems like this is a relatively rare situation, but I ain't an admin and would take on any responsibility given to me.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 4, 2014 12:02:20 GMT -5
I don't think we need TTC approval process for protects outside of the 4th-6th multiple protect scenario. It seems like this is a relatively rare situation, but I ain't an admin and would take on any responsibility given to me. Well, if we had a TTC check when D'backs protected Velazquez then we wouldn't be talking about it now... Admittedly, 9 times out of 10 it's going to be a rubber-stamping exercise. But 10% of the time there will be a catch - whether it be a name spelling, an incorrect year, a foul-up on the arb calculation, or even a query about player right/ownership - that I think could well make it worthwhile.
|
|
miggitymatt
League GM
Posts: 971
Favorite Baseball Team: Tampa Bay Rays
|
Post by miggitymatt on Dec 4, 2014 12:34:51 GMT -5
I think a retrospective TTC check of player protects is a good idea. It should only take a few minutes and would help keep rosters 100% accurate. If we decide to do that, Should each TTC member be assigned 3 teams?
After having some time to mull over the "grace period" idea, I'm not a fan. It would practically guarantee that you never lose any of your org guys that were not drafted by other teams. At least for the most active owners, which includes me.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 4, 2014 15:06:06 GMT -5
I think a retrospective TTC check of player protects is a good idea. It should only take a few minutes and would help keep rosters 100% accurate. If we decide to do that, Should each TTC member be assigned 3 teams? I think it should just be first come/first check, like it is with trade voting.
|
|
miggitymatt
League GM
Posts: 971
Favorite Baseball Team: Tampa Bay Rays
|
Post by miggitymatt on Dec 4, 2014 18:02:07 GMT -5
Fair enough.
|
|
bigfly73
Administrator
Posts: 1,366
Favorite Baseball Team: San Francisco Giants
|
Post by bigfly73 on Dec 4, 2014 19:55:03 GMT -5
I'm active as hell and I missed the Berrato protect, I actually think if it's a ten minute window and an owner wants to risk not protecting their prospects good luck with that. If it makes owners take risk and be crazy active I'm okay with that. I really think I was talking about more of a window because the reporting of the trades are not all exact, so a window is appropriate to me.
|
|
Turbanator
High A
Posts: 641
Favorite Baseball Team: San Diego Padres
|
Post by Turbanator on Dec 5, 2014 3:24:53 GMT -5
I'm active as hell and I missed the Berrato protect, I actually think if it's a ten minute window and an owner wants to risk not protecting their prospects good luck with that. If it makes owners take risk and be crazy active I'm okay with that. I really think I was talking about more of a window because the reporting of the trades are not all exact, so a window is appropriate to me. Similarly, I missed protecting Wily Adames last trade deadline. Ah well.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 5, 2014 4:54:58 GMT -5
What would be the purpose of a 10 minutes window? What is the scenario upon which it would be used, and how would this benefit this league and it's members?
|
|
bigfly73
Administrator
Posts: 1,366
Favorite Baseball Team: San Francisco Giants
|
Post by bigfly73 on Dec 5, 2014 5:02:06 GMT -5
I just think you are giving some leeway to allow protections. If we have 3 set resources that are set as the go to for trade announcements and we say the first one of these that reports the trade as official will be the one we use to determine the time stamp, then we give a 10 minute window from the time stamp to protect a player. I think this is a legitimate time period to use. If owners want to be risky and free cap by not protecting prospects because they think they can keep on top of all trades and be able to jump on and protect within that 10 minute window, I say this promotes activity and makes the league more exciting because you might have those risky owners and then they miss that window and loose a potential top prospect. I really think almost every owner will continue to protect their top 15 prospects anyway, but i like the window to allow some risk to owners who want to gamble for a little bit of cap space.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 5, 2014 6:09:43 GMT -5
Well, it looks like we're in agreement about the acceptable sources for trade confirmation, and that TTC should retrospectively check all player protects. Shall we share this thread with the rest of the league, and have a vote on a protect window?
|
|
Turbanator
High A
Posts: 641
Favorite Baseball Team: San Diego Padres
|
Post by Turbanator on Dec 5, 2014 10:35:52 GMT -5
I think that's the way to go.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 5, 2014 10:40:32 GMT -5
Moved from TTC board to the general board for visibility and further comment.
|
|