|
|
Post by WhiteSox on Jul 11, 2016 17:14:31 GMT -5
So we clearly need some clarification here. I don't see how with the new IFA bidding system that it is any different than our old TPB system where a foreign player was dropped, they then had to be bid on. At the very least since you can't pick up IFA players without bidding on them the first year, it should extend a whole year.
|
|
|
|
Post by Cincinnati Reds - Chris on Jul 11, 2016 17:49:01 GMT -5
So we clearly need some clarification here. I don't see how with the new IFA bidding system that it is any different than our old TPB system where a foreign player was dropped, they then had to be bid on. At the very least since you can't pick up IFA players without bidding on them the first year, it should extend a whole year. What she said |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 12, 2016 2:26:11 GMT -5
Unless I misunderstood, your proposing we extend the bidding period for league signed IFA's an additional year after they are released? Wouldn't that be a pain to claim a player as well as difficult to police? Not only would you need to check when a contract was originally signed and then check to see if he's already on a roster (checking the master list + recent signings), but then you would have to see if he had been signed previously in the TPB league.
I know I'm lazy but with the Hispanic/Latin players I can't imagine digging through 25 pages (Gonzalez) to see if someone previously signed him. For everyone involved I like the 1 year total post signing before FA claim. Less then 365 days rebid, 365 or more FA claim, period.
Just my $0.02.
|
|
|
|
Post by Arizona Diamondbacks on Jul 12, 2016 7:28:58 GMT -5
I don't think it is likely to be that big of an issue. Not many teams (besides Reds) have so high a turnover that they sign an IFA player then release him before he's even played any pro ball. I think this deal with Sierra is the first instance we've had of it.
That said, I'm content either way. How does the rest of the league feel?
|
|
|
|
Post by WhiteSox on Jul 12, 2016 13:14:49 GMT -5
Unless I misunderstood, your proposing we extend the bidding period for league signed IFA's an additional year after they are released? Wouldn't that be a pain to claim a player as well as difficult to police? Not only would you need to check when a contract was originally signed and then check to see if he's already on a roster (checking the master list + recent signings), but then you would have to see if he had been signed previously in the TPB league. I know I'm lazy but with the Hispanic/Latin players I can't imagine digging through 25 pages (Gonzalez) to see if someone previously signed him. For everyone involved I like the 1 year total post signing before FA claim. Less then 365 days rebid, 365 or more FA claim, period. Just my $0.02. No I'm saying if they are released within that first year that bidding is required normally they should have to be bid on again. After its been a a year past their signing date it doesn't matter. |
|
|
|
Post by Halejon/Nationals GM on Jul 12, 2016 15:24:23 GMT -5
I prefer the idea that once any player has been won and then dropped they are up for the cheapest (500k) bidding as for rest of claimed players and in real life, but who really cares...
|
|
|
|
Post by WhiteSox on Jul 12, 2016 18:23:16 GMT -5
I have a feeling you're saying that because you're trying to pickup a guy who just signed 9 days ago that Chris just dropped which is definitely ridiculous.
|
|
|
|
Post by Halejon/Nationals GM on Jul 13, 2016 1:08:36 GMT -5
You think I'm suggesting something purely out of self-interest over a hundred fucking thousand dollars of IFA? Please. Opinions were asked for, I gave mine. Like I said, who really cares...it just seems consistent. More that happy to take him off him off my roster since you find it so ridiculous.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 13, 2016 11:29:55 GMT -5
Unless I misunderstood, your proposing we extend the bidding period for league signed IFA's an additional year after they are released? Wouldn't that be a pain to claim a player as well as difficult to police? Not only would you need to check when a contract was originally signed and then check to see if he's already on a roster (checking the master list + recent signings), but then you would have to see if he had been signed previously in the TPB league. I know I'm lazy but with the Hispanic/Latin players I can't imagine digging through 25 pages (Gonzalez) to see if someone previously signed him. For everyone involved I like the 1 year total post signing before FA claim. Less then 365 days rebid, 365 or more FA claim, period. Just my $0.02. No I'm saying if they are released within that first year that bidding is required normally they should have to be bid on again. After its been a a year past their signing date it doesn't matter. Oh, OK, I agree with that. |
|
|
|
Post by Arizona Diamondbacks on Jul 14, 2016 7:59:00 GMT -5
**OFFICIAL RULING**
As per the Rules Committe, we have established that any player who is eligible for the IFA process and has been signed for less than one year must be bid on using IFA money regardless of whether they were previously owned on TPB.
The rules have been updated to reflect this change. I am allowing the claims of Carlos Sierra (Brewers) and Yerdeluis Varags (Nationals) since they were made before the rule clarification. Any player inked for under a year that is released after this point must be rebid on using IFA money.
|
|
