Rules Committee Request

[papps]

I know I have seen some different opinions on this rule:

Trading Recently Signed Free Agents
Free Agent signings cannot be traded until 60 days after they have signed.  This date will be shown per each player in the official rosters section.  In addition to our 60-day NTC rule, any players signed to extensions as well as FA contracts in the offseason cannot be traded until June 1st the following year.


I agree that there should be a 60 day rule but I am not in favor waiting until June 1st.  Now we have a few seasons under our belt to see how the rules impact the league I was wondering if the rules committee could take a look at this again and vote on if we want to keep the June 1st rule in the league.  Thanks for taking this request into consideration. 

[h4cheng]

I got no problem with using just the 60 days rule, but I think DW does. Let's talk it out here. I think 60 days is plenty of time to deter teams from trading players that were signed in the offseason.

[Dan Wood]

I do not...As was the case with Moneyball, some pretty horrible contracts were handed out because of ebay-esque bidding. Since those contracts became unfavorable to the team that won said player, those players were later moved before the start of the season. Now if those teams had not jumped in on the bidding, or didn't like the eventual asking price then they should not have bid. It leads to market inefficiencies in the free agency.

The June 1 rule also holds true to players that are resigned at the end of a contract the season before. As has been stated in many a post now, we try to emulate the MLB as best we can, and MLB has a similar rule. I understand that it would help facilitate trading, but, there is such a thing as a gentleman's agreement. If a player is holding up a trade, then use a placeholder in his stead, then swap them out later. But that is also reliant on both GMs holding up their end of the bargain, which sometimes they do not.

This rule was discussed in detail several years back, and I am firmly against changing it. I hate to be a stickler about it, but I think it is for the best of the league, the integrity of FA, and overall competitiveness that we leave it as is.

As an example:
GM A has the high bid on Player A. GM B jumps in and wins Player A at the last minute. This all takes place during the first week of FA. GM B says, oh snikeys, this guy isn't worth that, and trades him for 8 cents on the dollar to GM C - who was also in the bidding but tapped out early on. Now GM A has a right to be mad because an overzealous GM (B) outbid him for a players services, and then moved him as soon as he could before the season started, and it didn't impact his scoring at all. GM C makes out because he prolly didn't give up too much, and prolly got some money with player A as well. GM B just downgraded his team because he got caught in the moment, lost his nerve after winning, and so on. He then takes his savings, and moves on to another FA, does the same thing. This also puts further stress on the TC, because what direction is GM B going in? The basis of all trade evaluations.

I realize this circumstance is a little unlikely, but it is still a possibility. In a league where we don't negotiate contracts as they do in MLB, it is left open to the free market bidding system that lasts for, what seems like, ever. Keeping the June 1 rule in at least makes a GM sit with their decision as games are going on, making it less likely they will totally lose it in the FA market. 

[h4cheng]

I do not...As was the case with Moneyball, some pretty horrible contracts were handed out because of ebay-esque bidding. Since those contracts became unfavorable to the team that won said player, those players were later moved before the start of the season. Now if those teams had not jumped in on the bidding, or didn't like the eventual asking price then they should not have bid. It leads to market inefficiencies in the free agency.

The June 1 rule also holds true to players that are resigned at the end of a contract the season before. As has been stated in many a post now, we try to emulate the MLB as best we can, and MLB has a similar rule. I understand that it would help facilitate trading, but, there is such a thing as a gentleman's agreement. If a player is holding up a trade, then use a placeholder in his stead, then swap them out later. But that is also reliant on both GMs holding up their end of the bargain, which sometimes they do not.

This rule was discussed in detail several years back, and I am firmly against changing it. I hate to be a stickler about it, but I think it is for the best of the league, the integrity of FA, and overall competitiveness that we leave it as is.

As an example:
GM A has the high bid on Player A. GM B jumps in and wins Player A at the last minute. This all takes place during the first week of FA. GM B says, oh snikeys, this guy isn't worth that, and trades him for 8 cents on the dollar to GM C - who was also in the bidding but tapped out early on. Now GM A has a right to be mad because an overzealous GM (B) outbid him for a players services, and then moved him as soon as he could before the season started, and it didn't impact his scoring at all. GM C makes out because he prolly didn't give up too much, and prolly got some money with player A as well. GM B just downgraded his team because he got caught in the moment, lost his nerve after winning, and so on. He then takes his savings, and moves on to another FA, does the same thing. This also puts further stress on the TC, because what direction is GM B going in? The basis of all trade evaluations.

I realize this circumstance is a little unlikely, but it is still a possibility. In a league where we don't negotiate contracts as they do in MLB, it is left open to the free market bidding system that lasts for, what seems like, ever. Keeping the June 1 rule in at least makes a GM sit with their decision as games are going on, making it less likely they will totally lose it in the FA market.

Wouldn't removing the June 1st rule actually reward GMs who saved cap space and then is able to acquire expensive players on the cheap?

[Dan Wood]

It still ends up devaluing the player, and the process of FA. Because they have money now they can take advantage of an overzealous GM. Since it is perceived that this GM is "stuck" with this contract, the other GMs in the league have leverage. If the GM had not bid and won said player, then the players value would still be on a level relative to his contract. So a GM that valued said player at 12 mil wouldn't be as motivated to trade said player. But a GM that went to 15 mil, decided that it was too high after the fact, and then dumps him for less than his value because of his bad contract, has just manipulated the free agency system.

IMO I think anyone who gets won (prospects included) shouldn't be able to be dropped until after 30 days. That is for the very same reason.