|
|
Post by Mike(Red Sox) on Feb 2, 2015 22:23:48 GMT -5
If one of our teams loses a Free Agent who received a qualifying offer from his former MLB team in real life, we award that team a compensatory draft pick.
This is the first year we've done this.
Under our rules, draft picks can be traded. However, a decision was made to make these compensatory picks untradeable. That change/addition to our league rules was never put to a league vote, which, by rule, all rule changes/additions must be.
So, here's the league vote. Should these picks be tradeable the same way that 1st and 2nd round picks are?
|
|
|
|
Post by Danny(Padres) on Feb 3, 2015 0:00:24 GMT -5
shouldnt get the picks anyways, i traed for ellsbury last year when the rule was agreed, and nothing came of it, so it should have remained how it was
|
|
|
|
Post by JBach(Brewers) on Feb 3, 2015 4:50:10 GMT -5
im voting no your gettingthis pick due to you losing a free agent. i consider it a gift because you as the owner knew you were trading for a guy who was potentially a fa at seasons end. you only get this pick if your guy is a. offered a qualifiying offer and b. only if he is bought here in free agency. so no this pick shouldnt be able to be traded because you really dont know if your gettingt hat pick until after fa is completed. sorry i really dont think this shouldbe put to a poll becasue someine is gonna get the shaft by trading for htis pick and then said fa not bought
|
|
|
|
Post by JBach(Brewers) on Feb 3, 2015 4:52:47 GMT -5
im gonna have to say with a rule like this you need at least 2/3 of the league to vote to even change it. that means you need 20 voters to atleast vote and need over 50% to change it. sorry but this needs to be done imo
|
|
|
|
Post by Mike(Red Sox) on Feb 3, 2015 20:30:39 GMT -5
I get your concern, JBach, but qualifying offers are only given to elite free agents. There's no way a free agent like Max Scherzer or Hanley Ramirez isn't going to be bought by someone in our league, so there's no way anyone would trade for a compensatory pick and then be left with nothing.
|
|
|
|
Post by Kyle(Mets) on Feb 3, 2015 21:04:22 GMT -5
But Scherzer or Hanley could be bought by the original team and then the pick wouldn't exist
|
|
|
|
Post by Mike(Red Sox) on Feb 3, 2015 21:16:07 GMT -5
True, but that issue exists regardless of whether we make the compensatory picks tradeable or not. Either way, the rule has to be that no team can receive a compensatory pick for losing a player and then re-buy that same player in FA.
Accordingly, if you trade the compensatory pick (and therefore cash it in), you'd have to also forfeit the right to bid on the player associated with it.
|
|
|
|
Post by Kyle(Mets) on Feb 3, 2015 21:40:57 GMT -5
That to me just seems harder to manage but you are the one managing it so if you think it's fine then it should be fine
|
|
|
|
Post by Duck(Yankees) on Feb 3, 2015 23:06:16 GMT -5
I am on board with jbach about this issue 100 per cent. I made the decision to make these players non-tradable without asking anyone as I thought it was the thing to do since the players were from specific teams and not the same as draft picks. I do not believe that the MLB teams can trade these types of picks and have never seen or heard of it. To me this is not needed and should be deleted as a poll.
|
|
|
|
Post by JBach(Brewers) on Feb 4, 2015 5:01:43 GMT -5
have to agree with duck assessment as these picks are due to specific teams and players. sorry if this burst anybodies bubble
|
|
|
|
Post by JBach(Brewers) on Feb 4, 2015 5:04:04 GMT -5
and if ti does happen why would a team who trades for pick have to forfeit the right to buy that free agent? they werent the "original" team who owned that player so they shouldnt be penalized by picking up a comp pick thats not even a first round pick
|
|
|
|
Post by Mike(Red Sox) on Feb 4, 2015 11:29:07 GMT -5
It sounds like you're misunderstanding me. Let's use an example with real players and teams to make it clearer.
In our league, OAK owned Nelson Cruz last season. Cruz became a free agent this off-season, so OAK lost him. However, in real life, BAL made Cruz the qualifying offer. So, in our league OAK is eligible to receive a compensation pick for losing Cruz, but ONLY if OAK actually loses Cruz. OAK doesn't get the compensation pick if OAK re-buys Cruz in free agency.
This is true regardless of whether or not we make compensation picks tradeable - no owner is eligible to receive a "compensation" pick for losing a player that he didn't actually lose.
But let's say compensation picks can be traded, and OAK trades the Cruz compensation pick to SD for prospect 2B/SS Alen Hanson.
(1) OAK would forfeit the right to bid on Cruz in free agency because OAK now has received Hanson as compensation for losing Cruz. OAK cannot both buy Cruz in FA and have compensation (now Hanson) for losing Cruz.
(2) By making the trade, SD has now assumed OAK's former position. SD has the option of buying Cruz in FA or receiving the Cruz compensation pick. He can't have both, just like OAK couldn't have had both.
There is no scenario in which an owner who trades for a compensation pick is left with nothing.
|
|
|
|
Post by Joshua(Cubs) on Feb 4, 2015 11:42:08 GMT -5
regardless, unless the rest of the league all marches in here and votes yes, it looks like this one is going down.
|
|
|
|
Post by Mike(Red Sox) on Feb 4, 2015 11:46:05 GMT -5
Democracy in action - majority rules; whatever happens, happens. I just want to make sure people aren't voting based on misconceptions.
|
|
|
|
Post by Joshua(Cubs) on Feb 4, 2015 11:52:34 GMT -5
a phrase i often use in my line of work, best decision possible with the best information available.
I think the goal is fine: more pieces available to teams to generate more churn through trading etc... Rule changes are approached conservatively it seems so maybe a retry closer to the draft with an eye towards 2016?
|
|
