CI - Brad Hawpe

[Dan Wood]

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. 

[Dan Wood]

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.

[bravesfan4]

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.

[MillerTime]

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. 

[MillerTime]

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. 

[BHows]

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.

[Colby]

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?

[Daniel]

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.

[h4cheng]

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.

[lp815]

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.