ProFSL: Pro Fantasy Sports Leagues
ProFSL Front Office => Franchise GM: Transactions => Franchise GM => MLB DYNASTY GM HOME => Franchise GM: Completed Transactions => Topic started by: Needle Juice on January 25, 2011, 08:01:20 AM
-
$1m
-
3m
-
4M
-
fantrax only lists him as an OF not CI
-
He played 9 games there last year, He cannot be used as a CI until he gains fantrax CI eligibility, but he can be bid on as a CI for our purposes.
-
4M
6m
-
8M
-
$9m
-
10M
-
$10.5m
-
12M
-
15 mil
-
FYI, while the bidding on Hawpe is nuts, it actually does need to end. He should be listed only as an OF as he only played 9 games at CI in 2010 but retained OF eligibility.
-
At this point, I think the greater error would be to end it. Dan made an earlier ruling, so we should abide by it imo.
-
At this point, I think the greater error would be to end it. Dan made an earlier ruling, so we should abide by it imo.
I totally disagree. Even if Dan made a ruling, the ruling does not agree with the rules of the league. The bidding on Hawpe or any other player who is not eligible for that position should not be allowed. I agree 100% with Colby's post.
-
See Phelps, Cord (bid on by Rox, won by O's)... no one had a problem with it then. He never even played at CI except during the AFL, and is listed as an MI on Fantrax. He was won as a CI. Plus Cody Johnson(won by Pirates), was bid on, won, then dropped as a CI - listed on Fantrax as an OF.... So I based my judgement on previous instances that have occurred in the previous weeks... if we are going to say we are going to abide by the rules, then we cannot pick and choose when we do so.
-
See Phelps, Cord (bid on by Rox, won by O's)... no one had a problem with it then. He never even played at CI except during the AFL, and is listed as an MI on Fantrax. He was won as a CI. Plus Cody Johnson(won by Pirates), was bid on, won, then dropped as a CI - listed on Fantrax as an OF.... So I based my judgement on previous instances that have occurred in the previous weeks... if we are going to say we are going to abide by the rules, then we cannot pick and choose when we do so.
I totally agree with you Dan. I did not know that about Cody Johnson or I would have agreed with that as well.
-
Sorry to have begun this, but he is slated to be the everyday 1B for the Padres. Did this based on the Phelps decision.
The problem with this rationale, is that there is no standard for the minor league players. FAs should be treated the same no matter what - Major or Minor League. Cord Phelps played 3B in the AFL, only a winter league, and was ruled to be a CI.
-
Please also note that Alexi Casilla did not play enough CI games to qualify as well.
-
I know I tend to not speak up in matters such as this, and it may not even be my place to do so, and while I agree with Colby in principle, Dan does make some very valid points. That being said, allowing one thing to happen just because it has happened in the past isn't a good enough reason to disregard the rules, and it sets a really bad precedent. It is my opinion that if the structure of Free Agency is to be maintained, a hard rule on when a player can be bid upon MUST be enforced. Clearly there were 2 instances when players who are not CI were allowed to be bid on as CI, and to me, that is where the problem lies- making exceptions is what opened the door for Hawpe to be put up for bid in the first place when he most certainly should not have been. It is my opinion that that is where the error was made, and I feel the only way to prevent this from becoming a larger issue in the future would be to nip it in the bud before it escalates and people start taking advantage of a perceived loophole.
-
If we are going to designate that a player can only be bid on by his Fantrax position(s) that is all well and good and I have no problem with it, but it needs to be made clear up front. There have been several instances (3 so far this year), and many last year (Placido Polanco - bid on as CI comes to mind, Brandon Belt - OF only in Fantrax) where a judgment call from one of the governing bodies had to be made. I personally don't think this is a cause for concern, since the position a person is bid on has no effect on where you can play them in Fantrax. An argument can be made for Hawpe to be bid on as a CI. As an argument was made for Cord Phelps to be bid on as a CI. But once that bidding was complete (Phelps) it set a precedent moving forward. You cannot make a BLT, then say Bacon doesn't exist - if you get my meaning. If Phelps and Johnson were never let through during the CI bidding, then the Hawpe bidding should be stopped until OF bidding is open. But those two prior bid were allowed to pass, so now saying the Hawpe bidding cannot be continued could be considered hypocritical.
-
And Rob, didn't you drop Hawpe? His contract would have gone back to what he was due to make before being let go. Just so everyone is all clear on that rule.
-
The only thing I am saying is....By our rules Brad Hawpe is an OF. He only qualifies for OF. So he should be bid upon as an OF. Not a CI.
I agree with KDoc on if mistakes were made in the past, then we should do a better job at watching that. However, we should not continue to not abide by the rules.
-
And Rob, didn't you drop Hawpe? His contract would have gone back to what he was due to make before being let go. Just so everyone is all clear on that rule.
I did. I did not think the market for him was like this at the time or else I would have traded him for a spec. He really struggled in TB at the end of the year. I released him on Dec. 7th, so by the 60 day rule, I believe I was able to bid on him. Once he signed with SD, I would have taken him cheap.
-
My two cents. Set a standard from here forward. Continue the bids of Hawpe and Casilla. Bottom line, if you weren't willing to spend $15m now, why would you in a few weeks.
If Hawpe is bid as an OF, we can assume that the bidding process will be very similar to this. As long as the initial, minimum bid does not win, then there is no advantage. If he was won at $1m cause others did not think they could bid him, then there would be an issue.
-
In the overall scheme does it really matter if he's bid on and won now or a month from now? Unless I'm missing something there really aren't too many exceptions. I think Phelps was pretty extreme; teams work out player at different positions in Fall and Winter ball.There is nothing in Fantrax or Baseball Reference about him playing anything other than MI.
-
I agree with Rob on allowing these bids and going with our eligiblity standard for FA. Dan and Corey, are you two verifying position eligibility for questionable players and ones with multiple positions?
-
If Hawpe is going to play CI and played some games as a CI he should definitely be allowed to be bid on as a CI.
-
Why don't we just have one bidding period for batters and another for pitcher? This gets rid of all the confusion. It's not like there are lot of quality FAs out there anyway.
-
Why don't we just have one bidding period for batters and another for pitcher? This gets rid of all the confusion. It's not like there are lot of quality FAs out there anyway.
I agree with this.
-
I agree with this.
We could do that? Next year, we'll have Type A, Type B, Batters, and then Pitchers.
-
Colb, I would approve a change for next season, but with the line smudged already with Hawpe, Casilla, Phelps, etc., would it not be feasible to have this change enacted this off-season? Possibly a 2/1 date would give teams four days notice of the change, and making pitchers available 3/1?
If we are allowing the official rules to be 'bent' (so to speak) this off-season, I would think it plausible to go ahead with an executive decision to allow a change this year.
-
I would like to keep the dates alone this year. The remaining field of batters is sparse at best. I would prefer that we go to pitchers as scheduled on 2/1 rather than wait until 3/1. That would also allow teams a month to make trade for pitchers should they not be successful in FA.
-
Jake, i totally agree with you. %100.
-
Why don't we just have one bidding period for batters and another for pitcher? This gets rid of all the confusion. It's not like there are lot of quality FAs out there anyway.
:iatp: Glad I read the entire thread first, because this is exactly what I would have proposed....also helps keep prices down because all players are open to all the money, so not nearly as many "bidding wars"...a lot of times teams will miss out on a position, then they will go overboard on their next bid to ensure they get somebody (I've been guilty of this). I think this idea is grand!
-
I agree with Roy, keep it the same this year. If GM's have taken the time to plan out a FA approach, it would not be right to change things.
The line has be crossed, but Phelps, Casilla, and Hawpe are hardly the cream of the crop.
Don't get me wrong Phelps and Casilla may have value at MI, while Hawpe could be serviceable once again.
-
I guess I'm confused with Casilla being nominated. What sources are out there saying he would be in line for a CI spot? Hawpe I can understand with what is expected of him, but everything I see has Casilla at either 2B/SS.
If there is nothing out there proving Casilla as a potential CI, then to me, the rules have been not only bent, but broken. This is why I proposed just throwing all hitters available at once. Strategies have been formulated prior, I agree with Rob and Roy there, but prior strategies also didn't involve players being nominated long before they were supposed to.
I would bring this topic up elsewhere, but didn't want to clog up another post (Casilla's bid) with this stuff.
-
I guess I'm confused with Casilla being nominated. What sources are out there saying he would be in line for a CI spot? Hawpe I can understand with what is expected of him, but everything I see has Casilla at either 2B/SS.
If there is nothing out there proving Casilla as a potential CI, then to me, the rules have been not only bent, but broken. This is why I proposed just throwing all hitters available at once. Strategies have been formulated prior, I agree with Rob and Roy there, but prior strategies also didn't involve players being nominated long before they were supposed to.
I would bring this topic up elsewhere, but didn't want to clog up another post (Casilla's bid) with this stuff.
http://www.baseball-reference.com/players/c/casilal01.shtml
Bottom of the page in "Standard Fielding"
-
http://www.baseball-reference.com/players/c/casilal01.shtml
Bottom of the page in "Standard Fielding"
Ugh...6 games played, 1 started at 3B...alright, so be it. I'm not a fan of this, but I'll go along with it.
-
Ugh...6 games played, 1 started at 3B...alright, so be it. I'm not a fan of this, but I'll go along with it.
I'm not either Jake but the floodgates opened when Phelps was auctioned as a CI because he played some 3B in Arizona Fall League. Hawpe had 9 games at 1st last year and MAY play there but San Diego just signed Cantu so who knows.
If you guys want to scrap the Casilla bid go ahead but after these two examples I thought all bets were off. I've hesitated getting in the discussion mainly because it really doesn't matter to me if I bid now or a month from now. As long as we are all on the same page.
-
In my mind this is where it all started...http://www.profsl.com/smf/index.php?topic=1728.msg7426#msg7426... so we have 3 choices...
1. Bid on hitters all at once - I think it could become very problematic in a hectic kind of way
2. Let it continue as is
3. Bid by Fantrax position only
I think we really need to come to a decision and stick with it. Prior to it, we have been fairly willy nilly with how we treated position eligibility when it comes to Free Agency Bidding. Now that so many have spoken up, I think it is time to act, and move on. I personally think 3 is the way to go.
-
15 mil
Contract?
-
5mil 3 years