60 Day Trade Restriction Rule Proposal

[Anthony]

Is this what the vote would be on?

Or would there be differing stipulations between FYPD, FA, and Re-Signs...?

I would say if there's a vote, to avoid all confusion, do away with the whole "can't trade players for 60 or 90 days" thing.

Which I think Anthony, is what you're going for here.

Seems like others are okay with eliminating one thing, but not the other.

Yes, abolish the rule entirely. I don't think my proposal unintentionally specifies a group and is meant to be taken as getting rid of the entire rule.

[Paul S.]

The rules in place now are working well.  I see no reason to give GMs the opportunity to trade away their assets earlier in order to win and leave a mess for others to clean up.

[kidd5jersey]

What if we set a date that drafted players could be trade? Like midseason?

[Flash]

What if we set a date that drafted players could be trade? Like midseason?

We used to have a June 1st trade restriction for free agents signed during the off-season and 60 days for free agents signed during the season, but we got rid of that June 1st tag last season.  We kept the 60 day moratorium for newly signed free agents, free agent extensions, and FYPD players.

Anthony is proposing the total elimination of the 60 day moratorium in all circumstances. 

[WestCoastExpress]

Anthony is proposing the total elimination of the 60 day moratorium in all circumstances.

 :iatp:

The rules in place now are working well.  I see no reason to give GMs the opportunity to trade away their assets earlier in order to win and leave a mess for others to clean up.

Isn’t that how championships are won?
I feel like a team that just won a championship wouldn’t up and leave a league...

[BHows]

I'm against changing any of the moratoriums particularly the FA one.
This league is built around long term GM involvement developing a team. Trading or buying a team doesn't work. Our draft, much like MLB's, is set up to help the less fortunate teams get a leg up. Trading away assets to "rebuild" is counter productive to this theory. Why rush the process.
As far as FA are concerned allowing them to be traded immediately is a slippery slope I con't think anyone wants to go down. Too many opportunities for "side-deals", etc.

[game162]

I'm in favor of keeping the 60 day rule in place.

IMO, if you're going to draft/sign a player, you should be committed to him for a certain period of time. 

I don't know that removing the rule would necessarily hurt the league, but I don't have a problem with how it operates today.  So opening an unknown can of worms seems unnecessary to me.

The draft and flip seems excessive...like Jerry Dipoto on PEDs.

[Anthony]

If you have a problem with GM's trading away assets, that should be handled by the trade committee. If an owner wants to trade a prospect, they'll do it, regardless if it's December 1st or February 1st. I wouldn't be any less likely to trade a guy in my minors 60 days from now.

I don't see a problem with a player being signed just to be flipped to another team, it's no different than if a player is traded to Team A, and then Team A goes ahead and trades that player the next week, and I don't think it'll happen as much as you think. If I have time I'll take a look at some past trades 60 days after the draft/FA and see how many players included were new additions to the team.

[WestCoastExpress]

If you have a problem with GM's trading away assets, that should be handled by the trade committee. If an owner wants to trade a prospect, they'll do it, regardless if it's December 1st or February 1st. I wouldn't be any less likely to trade a guy in my minors 60 days from now.

In thinking about it a bit (since I'm bored and read thru this thread), the one "good" thing that comes of this rule as it stands now, is there should be somewhat of a trading frenzy come late January/early February when all of the recently re-signed players, as well as recently drafted rookies become "available" for trade.

I guess for that matter, there will be another trading frenzy that may occur a bit after that, when any signed FA becomes eligible to get traded in March and April, depending on position.


Overall though, as Anthony did point out, if a trade is going to happen with a certain player, it'll happen anyways. I'm sure as heck going to be trading Tim Anderson, Ryon Healey and Taylor Rodgers. All the rule does is delay that.
But as mentioned, it could be seen as a "good" thing in that it creates a bit more activity during the MLB off-season for us in fantasy land.

The other thing I agree with Anthony on is that despite Flash saying it isn't, it has to be a bit annoying and a little more time consuming writing beside each player when he was re-signed, or drafted (or signed in FA when FA rolls around). [It also messes with my OCD in seeing all those different dates beside each player, especially from the FYPD where they are a day to a week apart haha]

[Anthony]

Since this has been sitting for a while, I'd like to move to vote on if the referendum can move to a formal vote process. It sounds like I need 8 members to cosign. By the looks of it, it seems that some owners support one rule and not the other, so I'd like to have a vote on each one separately.

#1. Removing the 60-day wait period rule on first-year player drafted players, players become eligible to be traded once the FYPD has concluded.

#2. Removing the 60-day wait period rule on recently signed players, regardless of whether it's an extension or a free agent.

This should make it easier. Just respond saying you support #1, #2, neither or both.