|
|
Post by St. Louis Cardinals (Andrew) on Dec 30, 2014 18:45:12 GMT -5
Memo to all, please note the following change to our current MILB rule. This new rule replaces the old rule and comes into effect immediately.
MILB Eligibility rule change :
Effective immediately, any player that has more than 130 AB or 50 IP in the previous season must be held on your MLB roster unless they are in the minors in real life. During the off-season, if a player ENDED the previous season in the minors then they can be held there.
From Opening Day 2015 onwards, if a player on an MILB roster with more than 130 AB or 50 IP in CAREER totals is on an MLB roster in real life, he can be bid on under the normal free agent bidding rules by ANY TPB team.
From the minute of the bid, the team holding the player on their MILB roster has 72 hours to promote that player to their MLB roster. If the 72 hour period expires, the bid becomes valid and the standard free agent bidding process commences (ie: 24 hour window opens).
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 1, 2015 2:18:09 GMT -5
Does the 3 option rule also still apply? I vote yes.
|
|
|
|
Post by St. Louis Cardinals (Andrew) on Jan 1, 2015 2:23:02 GMT -5
Whole different rule but yes
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 1, 2015 12:33:36 GMT -5
If your hammer is solid enough you can make anything fit.  |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 23, 2015 20:43:48 GMT -5
I have a question I don't believe we addressed but it seems logical nonetheless. That is shouldn't the team that loses a player because they choose not to add him to their major league roster be penalized for the rest of the season as if they released that player?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 23, 2015 20:52:31 GMT -5
I have a question I don't believe we addressed but it seems logical nonetheless. That is shouldn't the team that loses a player because they choose not to add him to their major league roster be penalized for the rest of the season as if they released that player? No |
|
|
|
Post by BrewCrewGM on Apr 23, 2015 20:54:40 GMT -5
I have a question I don't believe we addressed but it seems logical nonetheless. That is shouldn't the team that loses a player because they choose not to add him to their major league roster be penalized for the rest of the season as if they released that player? No |
|
|
|
Post by St. Louis Cardinals (Andrew) on Apr 23, 2015 21:22:04 GMT -5
As above, no.
|
|
|
|
Post by Halejon/Nationals GM on May 30, 2015 12:19:20 GMT -5
This rule was debated? If I had known, I would have screeeeeeamed for a mandatory notification so we get all the activity and turnover of fringe guys without the potential for poaching a real prospect over some long weekend someone isn't paying attention or has an emergency, which just flat-out sucks.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 30, 2015 12:40:09 GMT -5
I thought it was the rule to notify?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 30, 2015 12:41:06 GMT -5
Whatever, just add that a PM needs to be sent to the owner.
|
|
|
|
Post by Halejon/Nationals GM on May 30, 2015 13:07:17 GMT -5
Yah, that's the idea.
|
|
|
|
Post by St. Louis Cardinals (Andrew) on May 30, 2015 18:06:16 GMT -5
This rule was debated? If I had known, I would have screeeeeeamed for a mandatory notification so we get all the activity and turnover of fringe guys without the potential for poaching a real prospect over some long weekend someone isn't paying attention or has an emergency, which just flat-out sucks. The rule change was posted as above plus sent to every team as a PM. "I would have screeeeeeeamed" but you didn't say a word at the time  ?? |
|
|
|
Post by Halejon/Nationals GM on May 31, 2015 3:07:44 GMT -5
I offer my opinion when there's discussion about an issue and don't cause a fuss once a decision has been made and PMed out to the league. I am incredibly sorry if this has caused undue trouble or confusion for you.
|
|
