CI Dan Johnson, Rays

[Brewers GM]

In my opinion, dropping a player before the deadline to clear room, resigning him and then dropping him again to save even more room on the original contract is clearly not a realistic situation.  In my post, I invited counter arguments in case I was not seeing the entire picture, and still encourage anyone including yourself to discuss why this is realistic and should be allowed.  Furthermore, I would like to hear if anyone thought this was within the original intent of the rules, as that would change my stance on whether or not it should be permitted.  This is just my personal stance, obviously the league and/or commish may be of the opinion that for this season we go by the letter as it's written and judging by Colby's earlier post it seems he's of the opinion it should be allowed for now.

My comment about being an RC member was that I would expect us to all work by the intention of the rules we write and bring up any loopholes during rule creation or as a modification proposal rather than after we use it as a loophole.  Re-reading my post, I understand why it could be interpreted as condescending and I apologize for that, it was not my intention - my bad.

[Dan Wood]

I suggest that the rule next year be "Cap hits plus new contract" since the team is only on the hook for the cap hits, not the entire old contract after releasing him.

1. I wouldn't vote for this
2. We need to move the discussion elsewhere

[Colby]

We need to move all of this discussion to the main board.  That's my main focus.  Scoring should be #1 focus by RC, updating waiver rules for next year, and then some small adjustments.

[Brewers GM]

On the Fielder topic, I can't claim to have an unbiased opinion but I do think it was a different situation.  At the time, myself and a number of other owners fully believed it was within the intent of the rules to trade expiring contracts after the season as many owners had done so and there had been no opposition to that point.  Since then, with the marquee players moved, many owners expressed their objection to the rules as they were written noting that it was unrealistic.  We have all reached an agreement on the topic and revised the rules accordingly. 

I would liken it to gathering GB heavy pitchers - there is a strong opposition to the current scoring rules which are accused of overweighting GB's and a desire to revise the system, but we all understand what it is today and play the game accordingly.  If you think the same argument can be made for dropping a player twice, then please make it.

[Brewers GM]

Sorry guys, please move whatever needs to be moved and we'll continue from the main board.

[rcankosy]

In my opinion, dropping a player before the deadline to clear room, resigning him and then dropping him again to save even more room on the original contract is clearly not a realistic situation.  In my post, I invited counter arguments in case I was not seeing the entire picture, and still encourage anyone including yourself to discuss why this is realistic and should be allowed.  Furthermore, I would like to hear if anyone thought this was within the original intent of the rules, as that would change my stance on whether or not it should be permitted.  This is just my personal stance, obviously the league and/or commish may be of the opinion that for this season we go by the letter as it's written and judging by Colby's earlier post it seems he's of the opinion it should be allowed for now.

My comment about being an RC member was that I would expect us to all work by the intention of the rules we write and bring up any loopholes during rule creation or as a modification proposal rather than after we use it as a loophole.  Re-reading my post, I understand why it could be interpreted as condescending and I apologize for that, it was not my intention - my bad.

Apology accepted.  I cannot speak to the original intent of this rule, but I can share the reasoning behind my current move.  I only saved 500K when I originally released Dan Johnson, and I had planned on using my current cap space of 500K (4m salary minus 3.5m cap hit) to re-sign him prior to cutting him for a second time.  It was not simply a matter of re-instating the original contract and cutting him again prior to freeing up the funds to do so.  By paying the 500K difference to re-aquire Johnson, I was essentially nullifying the prior transaction, so I saw no harm in it. 

[Colby]

Rescinded by the Rangers
Approved by the Commissioner's Office
Loop hole in the rules found and will be resolved