.comment-link {margin-left:.6em;}

Saturday, December 18, 2004

Partial list of under-contract BUers now in the junior circuit

Body slams:

Punch in the nose:


Who cares:



Friday, December 17, 2004

#9 Off season trades

Every few years this one rears its head (mostly by me). I understand why, but I think the current system of getting rights to a player coming over from the AL during the season, and getting absolutely screwed in the off-season isn’t fair at all. If I had Marcus Giles signed and he was dealt for Vlad, I get nothing?? Giles would have HAD major value, and potentially worth a Guerrero. The reason our rule is the way it is, is because a guy like Jason Nix wouldn’t be worth a Vlad. So how do we make this fairer? Some argue that players need to go through the draft process to give them fair value. I agree, but still think teams losing signed players in the off-season via trades should be compensated. I have come up with a couple of proposals to deal with this.

What if, during the off-season, we expanded BU to include a 13th team called the “Free Agents”? This team would be made up of EVERY player who had value last year (not FA’s). Say you had Shitty McGee on your team signed at a buck through 2006. Let’s say Shitty, and Sosa were dealt to the Yankees for Giambi. Since Sosa had a contract of 50 last year, he would have rights to Giambi. Since Sosa is a member of the “Free Agents”, Giambi would be in the draft in 2005. I think if you have the luck or smarts to have a guy like Marvin Benard signed, and he gets dealt for some stud, you should get him!

One of the potential problems would be Shitty McGee and Shittier Wilson being traded together for Giambi. In this scenario, under the above rule, the guy who had Shitty McGee would get Giambi. This isn’t right either. I would suggest that for a MINOR LEAGUE player to have ANY rights, he would either have to be listed in the TOP 3 Prospects for his club (we would have to pick the source—Baseball America?) OR he would have to be listed in John Sickels Top 25 NL Minor League players.

These are just ideas, I would love to figure something out that is fair for everyone. Don’t tell me that if Craig Wilson got dealt to the AL, my benefit would be a return of his salary. I CAN’T REPLACE HIM FOR 4!

Commissioner Bob

Update 1/6/2005

The league has spoken and on the issue of players traded in the offseason, they will continue to have NO rights to any players coming over to the NL. Since many thought that we might be able to come up with a different solution (protecting a player, or something), I am going to start dialogue on that topic alone.

#7 Process for picking up players

Last year, Humungous goes to a game with the SF cluster of BU. He tells everyone there he is picking up Mitre of the Cubs. He tells me as well, but I neglect to email it out for him. In the meantime, the Awobs send out an email saying they want Mitre. Since John had many witnesses, I ruled he got him. The current system for picking a guy up is that you can email, or tell the Commissioner (me). Should this be changed to:

A) Email only

B) Leave it the way it is, as the ruling was correct

I’m not sure how I feel about this, but I do know that email only isn’t practical. I think the word needs to get to Cooney or myself, and then our word is trusted. More than likely, I can send the email, but in the above situation, I forgot.

Commissioner Bob

Update 1/6/2005

The league has spoken, and we have decided to LEAVE THE SYSTEM AS IS. What “is” it, you ask?

Article V - Transaction Deadline
All transactions must be reported by 1 hour before the first pitch of the first game on Tuesday. All transactions need to be verified, either by email or a voice mail. The time of the transaction should be noted. In the event you are away from email, it is up to you to find someone to email your transaction as this has become the “official” timestamp.

In the event, I am the one you happened to call, most of the time, I can alert the league via email….

#8 Player value in a trade

Cooney suggested a rewriting of the current paragraph regarding rights to players. Say Player A is signed for 3 dinero through 2005, and Player B is signed for 2 dinero through 2006, and they are both dealt for Player C. Under the current rules, Player B would have rights as his net worth is 2 dinero times 2 years or 4. Player A has a net worth of 3. Is this fair? Should it be changed?

A) Player A would have rights as he is obviously worth more as he was paid more

B) Leave it as is

Commissioner Bob

Update 1/6/2005

The league has decided that the current system is flawed. We will begin to use a method of determining rights of players traded to the AL during the season, as current salary ONLY. The higher paid player gets the guy PERIOD.

#5 Player Quits

It certainly doesn’t happen very often, but this past season Raul Mondesi “retired” only to come back and play for the Angels. What happens to his rights? I ruled that a players rights are maintained by the BU team until he does something baseball related again. If he goes to the AL, Japan, etc, you lose him. If he resurfaces with another NL team, you get him. This could apply to waived players as well (on real teams).

A) is this ok with you?

B) Screw that, you lose him right away

Commissioner Bob

Update 1/10/2005

If a player “retires” for a minute, and resurfaces with a NL team, you maintain rights to the player. You will have NO rights if in the process of him “retiring” he plays in any other league (Foreign, AL, Junior, whatever). If he is signed and he is not on a NL team at draft day you will lose him, even if he resurfaces after the draft. Since you didn’t pay him at the draft, you have NO rights.

The vote was 7-4 with no vote from Huge.

#6 Waived players

Update: This issue is put to bed as well!!! Once you waive a guy, he is waived, EVEN IF HE IS SIGNED AND YOU WAIVED HIM BY ACCIDENT! Iron fist, no exceptions, period. Cool?

In the past, I have ruled that once you waive a player via email he is waived. This was upheld with the waiving of Chacon last season as he was waived via email. Then, I ruled that Mark DeRosa could be pulled back as he was signed and I felt that Low Life made an honest mistake, and due to bombs exploding all around him, I would give him the benefit of the doubt. How do we want to handle this in the future? Will this apply to guys pulled back for the purpose of trading? Should we:

A) uphold the idea that once a player is waived he is waived no matter what

B) Allow teams to pull a player back who was waived earlier in the week?

My own feeling is that you should wait to waive a player until you are sure you don’t want him and can’t trade him; in other words, as a last resort. What are your feelings?

Commissioner Bob

#4 Multi-team trades

Nomar Garciaparra. Need I say more? Last season, the Cubs/Expos, and Red Sox were involved in a deal, that to most was cloudy at best. I had to rule. I ruled that these types of trades will be viewed by their net result as it may be too difficult down the road to figure out EXACTLY what happened. No sooner that today, has this issue raised its hand again. Taken from the MLB.com:

According to Newsday, The Associated Press, and The Sporting News, the Yankees would receive the 41-year-old Johnson in the deal while sending Vazquez and two minor-league prospects -- catcher Dioner Navarro and third baseman Eric Duncan -- to the Dodgers. The Dodgers would send Green and pitchers Brad Penny and Yhency Brazoban to Arizona.
To me the above is confusing. It states Green and Penny go to Arizona, Johnson goes to NY, and Vasquez goes to LA. This deal could have worked one of two ways. Either LA traded Green and Penny to NY, and then they sent them to AZ for Johnson OR LA sent Green and Penny to Arizona for Johnson, and then he was shipped to NY for Vasquez. The second scenario is unlikely as Johnson didn’t want to go to LA, even though he wound up in NY. The point here is HOW DO WE KNOW??

I would actually like to get this issue put to bed now, as it directly affects a BU teams ability to prepare for the draft. In the first scenario, Green would be a free agent as he went to NY, in the second he would still be under contract, under our current interpretations of the rules. I say this needs to change. Should we:

A) allow these types of deals to be viewed as one trade, and then release or keep people based on net result

B) Scour the transaction pages looking for an official explanation of what happened. That would also bring into question what the official source is.

I personally think option B leaves a door open for some pretty bad feelings down the road as some will feel screwed. Also, who is going to be responsible for figuring out what happened? Option A is simpler and much cleaner. In the current day of baseball, these types of deals happen more frequently than they did in the past. Let’s figure this one out.

Commissioner Bob

Update: 12/29/2004

The league has spoken and the majority believes that a multi team trade (meaning 3 or more teams, with a mixture of AL and NL) will be forevermore viewed in its NET RESULT. The players who go to the AL are lost, and the players who wind up staying in the NL are kept. These trades MUST be reported in the same day, and if the player who is in the AL for a minute plays in an AL game in the time he is there, he will be considered an AL player even if he comes back to the NL in the same day. This will be the case retroactive to the end of last season (I don’t think there have been any deals as such yet—but it sounded official).

#2 August trade deadline

This season brought some ill will as a result of the Low Life/Islander deal that took place on the 23rd hour of the last day of trading. The reason there was ill will, is because at least 4 other teams said they had reached out to the Low Life in an attempt to negotiate a deal for some of those players. Should we amend the way we deal with August trades, or even trades in general?

I would propose one of the following (feel free to amend or discuss):

1) I would like to see the trade deadline on unsigned players (meaning free agents after the season) moved to July 31st. After July 31st, maybe we could put a player on waivers or something like they do in real baseball.

2) All other players could continue to be traded until 8/31.

This would allow teams in contention to react to big superstar deals.

3) I think players over a certain dinero in salary should be posted as available before they can be dealt, and that if a team gets an inquiry about the player, he must respond.

I’m sure I have more thoughts on this, but I have forgotten some of them. Again, be positive….Thanks.

Update 1/6/2005

We have decided to have teams post players they are willing to trade. Most people feel like players should be posted a minimum of 5-7 days. Now we need to figure out if there are any players that don’t need to be posted. I would propose Minor Leaguers don’t need to be posted. Are there any others? Also, this only will apply during the season. Should we say, only Post All Star Break? Also, where are these players going to be posted? Via email? Website?

Update 1/10/2005

The trade deadline will remain the way it is….NO CHANGE…

#3 Minimums

Update: Issue #3 is put to bed. It is up to the individual teams to know where they are at. If the website looks wrong, question it. A good rule of thumb is every 4 plate appearances equals one game.

Last season, our website incorrectly had info on games played for a couple of guys. This turned into a big deal. We need to figure out what the official stance is on player minimums (by the way, everyone made it):

A) A team can rely on the website as gospel in terms of minimums

B) It is up to each team to have an idea how many games they have at each position

Any other ideas on this? It seems like the website should be the gospel, but it MUST be right. In the event it is wrong again, then what?

Commissioner Bob

#1 PayPal

In order to submit a payment to me via Pay Pal, the sender has a fee deducted from his payment. This occurs because my account can receive credit card payments. This year the fees were taken out of the pot, as no one knew. If we decide to continue to use Pay pal as a form of payment for leagues fees, should we:

A) Continue to take the fees out of the pot

B) Charge the team who pays via this service the finance charge (add it in…it is currently 2.9% + $0.30)

C) Abolish the use of Pay Pal

In addition, I would like to propose a penalty for late payment. Currently, we have 30 days after the end of the World Series to get our money in. The sheet showing what you owe comes out the first week of the playoffs, giving teams 45-60 days to get their money in. What about:

A) No penalty whatsoever

b) Some dollar amount per week late. I would suggest $20 a week, thrown into the draft party fund.

This really is a non issue if you pay on time. It isn’t my job to baby-sit everyone…

Please give constructive dialogue

Commissioner Bob

Update 1/5/2005

The league has spoken, and here is what was decided. We will continue to use Paypal as a means to pay your fees. If you choose to use it, you must add 2.9% +.30 to your fees. Therefore, if you are going to use Paypal, let me know and I will give you your adjusted amount.

On the subject of penalties for late payment, we WILL impose one. You have until 30 days after the completion of the World Series to get your money in. After that time you will receive a fine of $20 per week late to go towards the food at the draft.

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?