Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 5, 2014 10:51:08 GMT -5
Wow it seems like Mommy and Daddy are fighting a lot. So if I may, is the basic issue here that there might be a disadvantage to some people due to geographical positioning on when they receive MLB news?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 5, 2014 11:02:13 GMT -5
Wow it seems like Mommy and Daddy are fighting a lot. So if I may, is the basic issue here that there might be a disadvantage to some people due to geographical positioning on when they receive MLB news? Not really. First of all, we're all agreed that something needs to be specified in the rules to determine exactly when a real life transaction/trade has been made. This can then be used to establish the cut-off of rights to that player in this league for protection purposes. Additionally, we're agreed that TTC will retrospectively check player protects to ensure that no bogus adds/contracts/spellings make their way into the league. There is likely to be a vote to determine whether the first 'official' report of a transaction/trade is the point at which a player can be protected by the related-new team in this league, or whether there is a delay or window of opportunity after the trade has been 'officially' announced where the team losing the player would be able to protect them - even though that player is no longer affiliated to their team.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 5, 2014 11:05:37 GMT -5
OK thanks for catching me up. Please carry on with your passive aggressive banter...
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 5, 2014 11:08:17 GMT -5
Perhaps best explained by an example:
Player A plays for Team X in real life, but is unprotected by the related organisation in this league. Player A is traded in real life to Team Y, and the first announcement of this trade is made by [insert reputable and agreed source here) at 10.01PM.
There is a proposal that a delay/window be allowed after the initial announcement of the trade that would allow Team X's related organisation in this league to protect the player for a specified period after the trade was initially announced by one of the agreed reputable sources.
The alternative to this proposal would be that at 10.02PM the team in this league related to real life Team Y would then assume rights to protect Player A as they no longer have any association with Team X.
|
|
saltman
Administrator
Posts: 1,161
Favorite Baseball Team: Atlanta Braves
|
Post by saltman on Dec 5, 2014 11:24:13 GMT -5
my personal opinion on this is that there shouldn't be any kind of "grace window". and teams shouldn't be allowed to protect someone 2 minutes before a trade is "officially" announced.
if people choose to leave prospects unprotected, then they know full well that the risk is that they'll get traded away IRL. it's a choice that everyone makes when deciding how to manage their cap. I, for example, have dozens of people protected, and it's meant that when some of my prospects have changed IRL teams, i have been able to retain their rights. but it also means I have less cap to dedicate to my ML roster. that's a choice that I've made. others choose to protect hardly anyone, meaning they have chosen to dedicate more of their cap to their ML roster, and I think that they should suffer the consequences accordingly if their prospects get traded IRL.
i am not too bothered about the time difference. trades get announced at all different times of day.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 5, 2014 11:30:35 GMT -5
my personal opinion on this is that there shouldn't be any kind of "grace window". and teams shouldn't be allowed to protect someone 2 minutes before a trade is "officially" announced. if people choose to leave prospects unprotected, then they know full well that the risk is that they'll get traded away IRL. it's a choice that everyone makes when deciding how to manage their cap. I, for example, have dozens of people protected, and it's meant that when some of my prospects have changed IRL teams, i have been able to retain their rights. but it also means I have less cap to dedicate to my ML roster. that's a choice that I've made. others choose to protect hardly anyone, meaning they have chosen to dedicate more of their cap to their ML roster, and I think that they should suffer the consequences accordingly if their prospects get traded IRL. i am not too bothered about the time difference. trades get announced at all different times of day. Personally, except for "and teams shouldn't be allowed to protect someone 2 minutes before a trade is "officially" announced." (which would just be impossible to manage/regulate) this mirrors my own opinion exactly.
|
|
saltman
Administrator
Posts: 1,161
Favorite Baseball Team: Atlanta Braves
|
Post by saltman on Dec 5, 2014 11:36:14 GMT -5
yeah you're probably right re. "the 2 mins before" point deciding how many prospects to protect is part of the strategy of the game. if we gave everyone a grace window then what would happen is most people would just unprotect nearly everyone, in the knowledge that as long as they monitor twitter diligently then they'll still be able to keep nearly everyone as and when required
|
|
scooter1027
League GM
Posts: 813
Favorite Baseball Team: Milwaukee Brewers
|
Post by scooter1027 on Dec 5, 2014 11:41:43 GMT -5
I tend to agree with the last two posts, and I say that as a team with an expensive big league roster and exactly zero Ranger or Cardinal prospects currently protected. Even a small window allows the very active owners (not that we want to discourage activity) an edge in roster/cap management, and takes some of the decision making out of the cap management process. The key, of course, becomes deciding exactly when a trade is official, thereby negating the need for a small window.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 5, 2014 11:49:18 GMT -5
I agree with the last 3 points... (Insert additional important written words to back up my point)
|
|
Turbanator
High A
Posts: 641
Favorite Baseball Team: San Diego Padres
|
Post by Turbanator on Dec 5, 2014 11:54:55 GMT -5
The list of sources for me would be something like...
Team A Team B MLB
Whenever any of these sources through any of their official media outlets confirm a deal, the transaction is complete IMO. While there are reliable third party media outlets and sources out there, I think it would be tricky to have a revolving door type list of additional people.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 5, 2014 11:59:43 GMT -5
I think the point of protecting someone is to show that you have foresight. In hindsight "oh gee maybe I should of spend the $0.3 to protect him ahead of trading season" doesn't sit well with me.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 5, 2014 12:09:41 GMT -5
yeah you're probably right re. "the 2 mins before" point deciding how many prospects to protect is part of the strategy of the game. if we gave everyone a grace window then what would happen is most people would just unprotect nearly everyone, in the knowledge that as long as they monitor twitter diligently then they'll still be able to keep nearly everyone as and when required If we really wanted to push it you could say that a player protect is only valid if the player finishes the day still with the real life team that allowed you to rights to protect him. Then you'd only need one reference point and you wouldn't have to worry about trawling through multiple sources to find where it was first reported and compare timestamps. This could also stop people from protecting players at the last minute if they are rumoured to be part of a deal. This would certainly encourage a conscious strategy on which players you were willing to risk as unprotected.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 5, 2014 12:18:17 GMT -5
Or if you wanted to really push it make it 48 hours. I mean in real life clubs have deadlines for protecting their prospects. I mean I know we don't want to do that but again, if you like someone protect them so they don't leave you for another person (not speaking from personal experience... I mean... um... TINA COME BACK!)
|
|
bigfly73
Administrator
Posts: 1,366
Favorite Baseball Team: San Francisco Giants
|
Post by bigfly73 on Dec 5, 2014 16:23:55 GMT -5
I'm a fan of the window myself, but it looks as if I am in the minority so I would agree with the above post about finishing the day with the real life team as opposed to having to protect by the time of the official trade announcement.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 5, 2014 19:52:10 GMT -5
If we really wanted to push it you could say that a player protect is only valid if the player finishes the day still with the real life team that allowed you to rights to protect him. Then you'd only need one reference point and you wouldn't have to worry about trawling through multiple sources to find where it was first reported and compare timestamps. This could also stop people from protecting players at the last minute if they are rumoured to be part of a deal. This would certainly encourage a conscious strategy on which players you were willing to risk as unprotected. I agree with this as part of the rule change to protecting and unprotecting prospects. I was thinking with my heart when I was considering the protect window idea, but ultimately this makes too much sense and the league is certainly about being active though more so about strategy and roster management. We have to be accountable for the strategy used to protect or unprotect players from our IRL organizations. There shouldn't be a "reward" for being active by protecting at the last minute or retroactively. We all agreed to be active owners by joining the league and it should be a given, without the need of an added incentive.
|
|