Loop Pole (Read 513 times)

[cubsgm]

The only two ways I can see being able to change that would be to start over, redraft and all, otherwise, you will always have contracts being affected, as Rfa is a very Nasty time, and players will be bid high on, and overpaid to get or keep.

[cubsgm]

Here is an Idea for a rule change, and could be put in this year I think with little problem.

Rule : A team is not allowed to aquire a player for less then he has been signed previously during the same season.

Example ' Anglels trade bonds 3yr $50 to A's. Angels could not reaquire Bonds that year for any less then $50 at 3yrs.
So if A's then waived him, Angels could not bid on him until after the bid is over $50.

That would I think put an end to the thought of it being a shady deal.

[lewjo]

I like that idea Angels.

I noticed it applies to trades only (which I agree with)

Last February or so, I waived Rickie Weeks and his $18 salary. I believe the Angels signed him. When he got injured during the season, Angels waived him. I bid on him after the 48 hours (and noone else did) and he ended up back on my roster at $2.

I don't think a new rule needs to prevent this. Agree/disagree?

[Deleted]

Best way to do it though is if you waived a player, you could not aquire him within the same year for less than what you waived for in any fashion, this closes that loop hole completely

[pgunz3]

I really like Angels idea, makes a lot of sense

[Giants]

Jan 18, 2010 14:37:23 GMT -8 @pgunz3 said:

I just was notified of pretty bad loop pole. this league has, which should be addressed and not ignored.

Basically why is this salary cap league? if a guy like Ortiz($36) can be waived and the team that originally signed him, well get of the hook then owes him nothing,makes no sense.That has to be changed, it totally defeats the purpose of salary cap league and will cause shady deals.Just make it an auction league then.

In real MLB, if a player was to get cut example Gary Sheffield, Tigers payed him i think 9 mill even though the mets had sign him for i think 1 mil, over here your off the hook if is waived and unclaimed.Which will happen cause no one will sign a guy for $36 thats in down hill.

I am not saying pay the whole amount,but at least maybe half the contract for the remaining years.


I been in leagues were this was abused and exploited.

There has to be some responsibility for signing a player to bad contract. I really hope the league, just doesn't turn it's shoulder to this.It should really be discussed.

I started this league as a contract league because I wanted it to be as close as a general manager's league as possible. Giving out contracts means you have to be smart with your money. Sometimes you give a guy a big contract, and it doesnt work out, just in the majors. However, why you could waive the guy, there's always a possibility that no one will claim him, leaving you with the contract on the books. And if the guy has played extremely poorly, then there probably wouldn't be a team to rush out and bid on him, leaving you to get creative in trades to get the contract off the books.

And even if you are able to get rid of a guy's contract, what impact players are you going to sign during the middle of the season? I don't think too many are going to be available.

As for the trading issue, that has never been an issue in this league. If you do reach some sort of agreement with a team to do that, that is called collusion and would be called out.

[bosox]

Angels idea is fine with me also and agree it could be implemented this year if the majority agree.

[pgunz3]

Some of the older owners seem like they hate or don't want change. I think Angles idea makes sense and seems to have some support. I still feel there should be some sort of cap hit, but i guess this is a 1st good step.

[Giants]

I'm fine with making that rule change. I just don't feel that this is as big of an issue as others seems to make it out to be. We've had this league going for a lot of years now without any problems with these "issues."

[pgunz3]

Who's the comish Bobby or Justin? I though it was Bobby

[JimB (as in Brewers)]

Jan 19, 2010 10:43:52 GMT -8 @pgunz3 said:

Who's the comish Bobby or Justin? I though it was Bobby

Bobby is now ... Justin was/is the founding father and the original commish.

[lewjo]

Justin is the original commish. Bobby is the current one.

I agree with the proposed rule for traded players.

I also agree with Justin that there hasn't been a problem in the past.

I'd still prefer leaving waived players out of the proposed rule for logistical reasons (14 teams 40 player rosters - 42 during the season; injuries can really thin out some positions.) but it's minor resistance.

[Deleted]

I am ok with the rule covering both waivers and trades

[lewjo]

How about:

A team is not allowed to reacquire a player by waiver claim or trade for less then he has been signed by that team previously during the same season.

Suppose Rockies waive Rickie Weeks 2/$18. Whoever bids for Weeks, say the Angels for 5/$10 later waives Weeks.

If Rockies put in waiver claim, they must carry on roster at 2/$18.

If another team claims Weeks, they can trade Weeks to Rockies, but at 2/$18.

If noone claims Weeks while on waivers the 2nd time, the way I reworded the proposed rule would allow Rockies to bid on Weeks as a UFA. Say for 3/$2

(ie noone else wanted him - but all teams except Angels could have made waiver claim or bid on him after 48 hours were up)

Note - if the Rockies were then to trade him to the Angels the same season, the Angels would have to carry him at 5/$10 (what the Angels signed him for)

Any objections to this wording?

[Deleted]

just seems like it would be difficult to track