Position Eligibility Requirements

[OriolesGirl]

It's cool with me!

[Paul S.]

I'm good with points 1 and 3.  The GP and IP might need to be lowered after we see the results next year.

[hank]

Yes... we need to... here is my suggestion.

We have a 50 GP and 40 IP rule for the establishment of the major league clock on prospect contracts.  Why note use those same numbers for position eligibility?

1) A minor league player called up from the EDR will immediately have their eligibility analyzed.
2) All players eligible for multiple positions will be analyzed at the trade deadline.  The rule can be 50 GP and 40 IP for the past and current season.  At the trade deadline, only the current season will count - similarly to how the 2008 rankings were phased out for contract extensions at the trade deadline.  Players hurt for the year may end up losing out on this, but they can regain position eligibility once they hit those numbers again.
3) Players are always eligible for at least one position.  If they were eligible for multiple positions and then became ineligible for such positions, positions will be removed in order of when they first became eligible for such positions in the first place.

Agree with Colby on points 1) and 3).

[bravesfan4]

Agree with 1 and 3 as well.

[Dan Wood]

I agree, 50 GP may be a bit steep though

[Canada8999]

I agree, 50 GP may be a bit steep though

I also think 50 is pretty steep.  Very few players will qualify for more than one position, which isn't necessarily bad but eliminates the value that some bench players bring (their position flexibility).  I wouldn't vote against 50 if that's what everyone else thinks is best, but personally I would suggest 20-30 games.

[Dan Wood]

Ben has a very solid point. I think 20 is a good number. I think we could do 15 as well. I think given a set of numbers in a poll would prolly be the easiest way to do that.

[Colby]

 :judge:  I am going with half of those values - 25 GP and 20 IP.

[clidwin]

yeah ill approve..... 50 was alot, but like your guys final discussion. I approve!

[Dan Wood]

Question about this new rule though, and I didn't even think of it until Paul had mentioned something in his post for his trade with the Nats. If Luke Scott has lost eligibility at both CI/OF then how is he to be paid. He has eligibility as neither, so he falls outside of the chart that we base our salary requirements on. If he is going to be paid as an OF, then he should be able to play OF. I have the same problem with Adam Lind. I paid him 16.5 mil coming into this year and his eligibility is now that of a UT, and only UT. His value is obviously diminished, now that he only can play in one spot. So how do we approach the salary issues? There are only a few guys in the majors that will have this issue, but chances are they will all be on a roster at some point this year.