Players traded out of the player pool!

[BLB Tejanos]

Now that the vote is complete on the player pool size for the 2009 season, keep in mind that any player on your roster that by February 1st is NOT on a 40-man MLB roster for the 26 teams in our player pool is automatically RELEASED from his contract - whether you want to keep him or not.

So for example, if you have a player on your roster that has already been, or is traded to one of the 4 teams outside our player pool (WASH, OAK, PITT, HOU) or signs as a free agent with one of those 4 teams before Feb 1, 2009, he is released from your BLB roster, and his salary is off the books.

I have one player already, Jason Michaels, who was with Cleveland when we drafted in March 2008, but was traded during the 2008 MLB season to the Pittsburgh Pirates. As a result, he finishes the current BLB season he was in with me, but is then released at season's end. Now, to throw a monkey wrench into the equation; say Michaels is traded or signs a FA contract by 2/1/09 with one of the 26 teams in our player pool? Then he is NOT released from his BLB contract. The reason being is, he is not officially released from his existing BLB contract until the official "day of reckoning", so to speak, on 2/1/09.

Brad Pike (Arlington Cowboys) has a player, Jason Botts, who was with the MLB Texas Rangers last year, but has since signed a contract with a Japanese team. So, we know that he won't be on an MLB team, so Brad could cut him to release him from his contract. Still, he cannot OFFICIALLY release him from his contract *until* 2/1/09. If he releases him before then, he is forced to be binded to his salary/contract and would have to buy him out should he elect to cut him before then.

These are just a few scenarios to outline how players not being in our player pool can affect contract scenarios.

[happytimefunboy]

Same goes for retired players I take it... Ie: Maddux, Torres and Mussina are now gone from our player pool... (Unless the say they are coming back and sign with a team before Feb 1rst) correct?

[BLB Tejanos]

Dec 10, 2008 14:43:22 GMT -6 happytimefunboy said:

Same goes for retired players I take it... Ie: Maddux, Torres and Mussina are now gone from our player pool... (Unless the say they are coming back and sign with a team before Feb 1rst) correct?

Correct. Anyone not on one of the 26 teams' in our draft pool's 40-man roster is a goner.

[becker]

don't we get to use the retired players in their last year, or are they immediately released (not that I have any, but it seems harsh that you don't get to use their last year).

[BLB Tejanos]

Dec 11, 2008 14:18:32 GMT -6 becker said:

don't we get to use the retired players in their last year, or are they immediately released (not that I have any, but it seems harsh that you don't get to use their last year).

Nope.

According to the DLB Rules:

PLAYER CONTRACTS
Once a player has been drafted in the Regular
phase, he must be kept on your DYNASTY League
Baseball team for a minimum of 3 years unless one of
the following occurs, which automatically releases
the player from your team prior to the draft:

A PLAYER IS AUTOMATICALLY RELEASED FROM HIS CONTRACT:

1) He is traded to a real life team outside the
DYNASTY League player pool.

2) He becomes a real life free agent and signs
with a real life team outside of the DYNASTY
League player pool.

3) He retires from Baseball.

4) He is released and is not picked up by a real
life team in the DYNASTY League player pool

5) For any reason other than injury, suspension or
hold out, he is not on one of the 40 — man
rosters or a Spring Training invitee of one of the
teams in the player pool prior to draft day.

When any one of the above occurs, the player
leaves the team and the salary paid to him goes
back to the franchise owner, who now can use that
money for next year's draft to acquire new players.

NOTE: The five conditions for automatically releasing
a player listed above also apply to players signed to
guaranteed contracts.

[becker]

another reason to hate Mike C's product.

We pledged to go by his rules, so c'est la vie.

[BLB Tejanos]

Dec 13, 2008 17:57:48 GMT -6 becker said:

another reason to hate Mike C's product.

We pledged to go by his rules, so c'est la vie.

Hate's a pretty strong word to attach to the concept. I personally am staring right in the face of losing a potential 30-start guy who cost me only $1 in Andy Pettitte should he either a) retire b) choose not to re-sign with the Yanks before 2/1 or c) sign with one of the 4 teams outside the player pool. Someone was joking with me the other day saying, I just dealt for Peavy and it would really suck for me if he ended up being dealt to someone like, say, Houston. Therefore, he'd be out of our draft pool, and I'd lose Peavy. I told the guy in actuality, the blow to losing a guy like Peavy in a situation like this is not a big deal, because Peavy's salary of $69 a year comes right back to me and I can use that towards the draft.

No, in actuality, even though Andy Pettitte is by no means great, his $1 card for this season would be a much bigger loss to me than losing Peavy, because while I'd get his salary back as well, Pettitte's only $1, and I'd be MUCH more hard-pressed to find another halfway decent 30+ start starting pitcher for $1 in the draft, than I would've been able to recoup quality starts with the $69 I'd be gaining for losing Peavy.

Like anything, this like - as are other leagues - is a democracy. We can certainly vote to decide which rules from the official DLB rules we care to continue to use or throw out. But just so everyone knows where I stand personally, I am all for keeping the rules as SIMPLE as possible - hence the reason to follow the DLB Rules as closely as possible. As you can see by the above scenario regarding Pettitte, I'm not for keeping the DLB rules as they are for some personal gain to me, as the rule actually would HURT me more than help me. But, I'm trying to see the bigger picture here, and that is:

A) The rule is simple
B) The rule potentially affects everyone the same way

Therefore, it's easiest to leave the DLB rule as is. I fear that the more we tweak the DLB rules to our needs, the more complicated things get. And the more complicated things get, the less interest people have in the league.

One of the tenets that Mike C. puts right in the rule book speak volumes to me, and I wanted to share this with everyone:

REASONS WHY LEAGUES FAIL - AVOID THESE PITFALLS
1) Can't find enough players to get started or
replacement players to continue league.
2) Schedule too demanding and season never
finishes
3) Cheating, disputes and arguments.
4) Lack of parity- League rules allows best teams
to lock away and hoard talent indefinitely.

I got to reading that a few times, and I don't think I've ever come across #3 very often, aside from a few petty argument/disputes in some leagues. Nor have I run across #1 very much either, because my history was in the EJMA League, which Doug Becker, Brian Feig, Josh Boyd, Aaron Peck, and Jon Sokolowski as Commish's always did an excellent job of replenishing talent.

But, #2 and #4 are EXTREMELY important to me, and are by definition the very reasons behind why I think a league can succeed or fail. We saw one league go by the wayside recently due to #2 (Continental Baseball League) and - PLEASE PLEASE DON'T TAKE OFFENSE EJMA OWNERS/COMMISH - but I felt to a degree #4 existed there. In EJMA, if you DON'T make trades, then you can't acquire the best talent; meaning, it behooves you to HAVE to trade to be successful.

All unintended drive-by complaints aside, that is why I hold BLB so dear - you don't HAVE to trade like a madman to be successful in BLB, but you can if you want to. The draft itself will be so overstuffed with talent, that any cap-savvy owner/gm can go a full season without making one trade - and still rebuild his team via the draft.

I know I'm going on a tangent here, and for those owners who don't know me from my time in the EJMA league, you'll come to find I do this from time to time, but this harkens back to why I think SIMPLICITY is the key to this league. Keep the rules uniform, simple, easy to understand, and that will help the flow of the season go naturally.

I've noticed a dearth in offseason dealing, which is kind of sad, because I do enjoy trading. But, I think this is a new league, and everyone's getting their bearings on how to proceed with the first full offseason. I don't take it as a harbinger that owners are disinterested - which again, coming from only previous frame of reference, the EJMA league - was considered a major concern, because trading is one of the lifebloods of that league. I do take it, however, that owners in our league are still unsure what their next step is.

I think things will speed up dramatically after the new year- once the cards are out and everyone can see who they have. Once owners start to for sure to decide who they're keeping and who they're cutting, then we'll get a better understanding as to who will be in the draft, and that will help develop owners' action plans going forward.

[dougnsjr]

I hope Teixera signs with Washington

[M24H]

I agree that simplicity is hugely important, and that if we decided to go by the official Dynasty rules then that's what we should do.

That said, when you consider the fact that the entire premise of the game is that the prior MLB season stats are used to create Dynasty cards, this is a rule that doesn't make a whole lot of sense.

[happytimefunboy]

I like the idea of it staying simple and I also believe most owners have a great interest in this league... and waiting to see the cards is slowing down trade talks as with the impending holidays. I think January will open it up. It does seem a waste to see Mussina finally win 20 games and not to use his card but that's life... we can use him in other leagues... or alone at home, playing by (with) ourselfs... like Garson does. May M. Bradley sign on Feb 2nd.

I am surprised and disappointed to see that only 9 of our 20 team league have signed up to this website... (Great work setting it up ... thx for that) Hopefully everyone will be on board by the new year.

Can't wait to see what surprises lie in those cards...

[becker]

you'll notice I didn't propose a rules change.

I just pointed out that Mike C is once again a moron.

We should use his rules. I agree. But I just wish he was a smarter man than he is.

[M24H]

well, teix is in the pool, but from what i hear there's a strong possibility that manny is getting a big offer from the nats.....

[happytimefunboy]

I hope Bradley goes to the Nats...

and Penny and Issringhausen don't sign... that would be good..

[raiders]

Dec 15, 2008 20:19:41 GMT -6 becker said:

you'll notice I didn't propose a rules change.

I just pointed out that Mike C is once again a moron.

We should use his rules. I agree. But I just wish he was a smarter man than he is.

FWIW, Mike's rules suggest a larger player pool for a league our size. If you had voted for a 30-team player pool, the only players left out would be retirees. If we had gone to a 30-team league format, there'd be no point in leaving out retirees as far as I'm concerned.

[happytimefunboy]

Penny signed that Bast@$d...

Boston was suppose to go after Lowe...