Loop Pole (Read 512 times)

[bosox]

rockies are right on as to rebuilding with waived players dumped by title seekers and astros is also right on with any obvious funny or suspicious shady dealings would be pounced on by all other owners and our excellent commish.

[pgunz3]

Ok, i plan to try this out again even thought, i have before and it end poorly.

One thing that does bother me, Is why weren't new teams told this or made in a post.I think that should be done cause if i knew that,i would have not made a lot of the deals i made.I made them thinking about the cap.If i knew i could release Crawford,i would have.I like him but not at that price.It's almost has th old owner took advantage since i never knew about it and couldn't find it

[fidoz]

So I think this stems from trade discussions between me and the Mets. The Mets seemed interested in Reyes so I was making offers with him. One offer he said he would have been interested in but cap considerations. Following this I continued to make lower and lower offers trying to acquire a position player I was interested in and either a pitcher or a pitchers RFA. When it appeared to be a cap issue I offered to take a hurt Beltran to help alleviate the cap hit. In my offer I mentioned that I would probably end up cutting him anyhow. This wasn't done in any kind of shady way. I never considered waiving a player for cap room to be a loophole because it's clearly stated in the rules and seemed like standard strategy.

I would love to have Reyes playing SS for me but at $60 and so few signed players, He just doesn't make sense to keep. With the RFA period coming I thought I'd see if someone with the cap room would want to get him without having to bid or go through waivers.

I've got a lot of work to do to get this team competitive.

[Deleted]

I don't believe this is a loop hole. It can either help or hurt a team. Waiving Matt Cain can work as strategy for The INDIANS to gain some cap space to sign other players. But if I waive him, I get no player in return,
Need to look at the big picture. There are pros and cons but I think the concept is solid.

[bosox]

all the league rules are written out and explain all about the waiving of ANY player as well as how to do it.

if you read all the rules and were unclear on any you could have asked anyone and had questions answered.

now you cannot waive players until the 22nd and it is always better if you can make a deal to improve rather than donate a quality player.

would you have rather kept crawford until friday and waived him and got nothing or happier to get the players you did via trade?

just because you may see rfa's out there you want it does not mean you will get any even with extra cash.

a trade you have the players rostered and no guessing.

[bosox]

As both the Phillies and Indians mention acquiring a player on purpose to waive them and free up cap space is a strategy commonly used and not a shady move.

it does not mean it works but it is up to the owner on whether or not the gamble is worth it.

[pgunz3]

Phillies, this has nothing to do with that at all.


Boston we will agree to disagree

[Deleted]

Mets will be fine, lets say you waived Crawford, chances you could add a Peavy who if healthy gives you an ace, and a decent ss 3B in Peralta are low..pretty good haul for a guy you were thinking of or might have waived

Astros really likes high dollar contracts

[pgunz3]

Jan 18, 2010 16:36:53 GMT -8 @indians said:

I don't believe this is a loop hole. It can either help or hurt a team. Waiving Matt Cain can work as strategy for The INDIANS to gain some cap space to sign other players. But if I waive him, I get no player in return,
Need to look at the big picture. There are pros and cons but I think the concept is solid.

so do you get a player or what?

Your waving Cain to get cap space to get a another player or 2 right.

So your getting a player, theres no question about that.

Yea the big picture is you over payed,but now you can fix that by waiving him then signing another player who could be better and cheaper.

[lewjo]

I think the Mets make a very valid point.

I believe - but do not know for sure - that some newer owners have left our league because they could not recover after making deals before they truly understood the rules and nuances.

The league is complex - and it does take time to absorb all the rules.

It is a unique league in that success depends on signing good players cheap - prospects, injured players, slumping players AND filling all the roster slots (including 2 Utility slots) that will earn decent scores in the scoring categories.

Sometimes you can afford $60 for a Jose Reyes. Most of us cannot.

If you do feel you made a trading error:
1) Let us know - maybe we can help make sure the new owner gets feedback before a trade is finalized
2) Contact the trading partner and see if something can be worked out.

[Deleted]

I am still new to the league, I came in early last summer. Not once I have seen something done in the league that has been considered shady. A lot of the things that I have picked up were from the "constitution" and from trial and error.

Most of the rules are out there for you to read and follow. If you have any questions, any of the guys are more than willing to help you out. This is a great league. If you are hardcore and you stick it, it is fun and addicting as hell. To repeat what was said before, the guys that quit didn't have the time and couldn't cut it. Including the owner that I brought in and thought he would work out. I don't think people quit over a poorly run league, as this league is run better than any cash league I have been a part of. Hats off to Bobby and the pioneers of this league, I am proud to be a part of it.

Rangers and Indians blow, later.

[bosox]

last year we debated various changes and this waiver stuff was part of it.

it was said if we kept solid ownership we could look into rule changes after the world series and in detail.

however the loss of 3 owners and not filling the spots quickly meant we never got around to any possible discussions.

should we stay strong and hopefully keep everyone we should have a open discussion about possible changes after the world series check in bobby does to confirm who is returning.

this would give us lots of time to reflect and any changes would be far in advance of opening up trading and bidding so we would all know what to adapt to.

like last year good points have been made on both sides and the late date again has probably stifled any changes that may be worthwhile.

[Deleted]

I agree, we have a great commish and any changes that can and should be made always are..lots of changes have been made throughout, with the blessing of everyone

[JimB (as in Brewers)]

I am not an original member nor am I a brand new member but I am a GM with a mix of big contracts [Miguel Cabrera...$45/2/ $54, Jason Bay...$30/2/ $36, Jonathan Papelbon...$18/3/ $22] and prospects [Madison Bumgarner...$5/4/ $6, Jeremy Hellickson...$2/4/ $3, Tyler Flowers $2/4/ $3]. I really enjoy this league and a big part of the reason is the year long balancing act you do developing a workable roster now and and for the future. Bidding - both for RFas and UFAs, assigning years, trades - both those you accept and those you decline, the waiver process ... all get woven together with daily line-up changes. It is fun though it can be time consuming and learning the nuances of the rules as well as particular likes and dislikes of your peer GMs do require some patience.

The Commish is fair and I believe all the members do keep the best interests of the league in mind!

[Bobby]

Personally I like the idea of some continued, limited liability.

But to be fair, it would either have be a rule when a league starts, or some year in the future so as not to affect contracts already in existence.

As stated above, this was discussed a while back, and the consensus was basically "no".