|
|
Post by BrewCrewGuru on Dec 27, 2012 22:15:01 GMT -5
A rookie eligible player with (XXX) status will lose rookie status if they exceed the following qualifiers:
- 130 at-bats or 50 games (for hitters)
- 50 innings or 30 games (for pitchers).
- Post-season stats do not count, but any needed play-in games to determine play-off teams or seeding will count.
Any rookie eligible player with (XXX) status that appears on the active roster, but does NOT exceed those qualifiers will be considered a (1st) year player. After which, any player who has seen time in a previous season appears in even one game in any subsequent season will be considered to have expended their 1st year of service time.
All service times were determined at the start of the league and will no longer be determined by MLB service time. Only service time in our simulations will be taken into account going forward.
All players entering their 4th year or later will have their contracts guaranteed and accrue service time, even if they never appear on the active roster. This is to prevent hording of players and keep the free agent pool full.
During the off-season, a calendar will be created so all GMs are aware of all deadlines and start dates. If a GM fails to send in their arbitration and option decisions on players, it will be assumed that all arbitration will be accepted and all options will be declined.
Making a CE Inquiry on a player automatically accepts their arbitration. If a team trades for a player after a CE inquiry has been made, but before it has been accepted or rejected, the acquiring team may still accept it. Teams may not request CE Inquiries on players who were acquired after the CE Inquiry deadline if the previous team did not submit one.
|
|
|
|
Post by Cubbies on Jan 5, 2013 23:44:54 GMT -5
Updated 01/05/12. Please read through so you are familiar with them, and also looking for any errors or areas that need clarification.
|
|
|
|
Post by Elephanti! on Jan 6, 2013 0:08:26 GMT -5
30 games played? Not liking that amendment.
|
|
|
|
Post by Cubbies on Jan 6, 2013 0:22:15 GMT -5
30 games played? Not liking that amendment. That was announced on the last message board right before it went down. It sorta got lost in the hubub of the STL-CLE trade fiasco. This was decided because of RPs and Bench players. A relief pitcher could spend the entire season on the active roster and only pitch 49 innings. I had Danny Espinosa on my bench for the entire 2011 season. He got 100 at bats in 121 games, and entered 2012 as a 1st year player. This was to close that loophole since we don't have a "days on 25 man roster" rule like the MLB does. |
|
|
|
Post by Pirates GM on Jan 6, 2013 9:04:21 GMT -5
Joe, do you think that's a change we could put up to a league vote? Large payroll or small, I know that all GMs like to keep their players' YOS as low as possible for as long as they can.
Maybe it wasn't as real-life realistic, but I really liked not having to burn a guy's 1st year status if he was just a bench player for me for part of the season. Plus frankly, 30 games played for a SP is much more significant than 30 games played for a RP, which in turn is more significant than 30 games played for a bench player.
Do you think there's any way we could put this rule change up for a vote? Thanks man.
JIm
|
|
|
|
Post by Cubbies on Jan 6, 2013 10:08:41 GMT -5
What were you thinking the cutoff should be? I think something needs to be in place. In the above scenario, Espinosa literally played in 75% of my games, but maintained 1st year status. That is sorta ridiculous. And with RPs, it is giving them basically a full year of extra service time before free agency. You get into a significant portion of your team's games, you end up deciding the fate of your team, and your opponents. And if you have that large of an impact on a season, the season should count for you.
|
|
|
|
Post by Pirates GM on Jan 6, 2013 10:12:11 GMT -5
Honestly, I liked the way that it was. Even with us being division rivals, it doesn't bother me in the slightest that Espinosa retained his 1st year status with you.
I thought the rule was clean cut, and made it easy for GMs to follow. Plus, I thought the limitations were good enough that it allowed a player to be a role player on a team, but they also really couldn't be a main cog of it, unless you brought them up really late in the year.
Plus, with the (very good) rule that an XXX player becomes 1st the following season if he debuts at any point, it also prevents GMs from exploiting this "loophole" more than once per player.
Honestly Joe, I just thought it was already a good rule that everyone liked, and allowed GMs to maintain a player's xxx status if they did so strategically.
JIm
|
|
|
|
Post by Elephanti! on Jan 6, 2013 10:41:40 GMT -5
Why not just continue to follow the Baseball America standard for graduation?
-130 ABs
-50 IP
-30 Relief Appearances
We can simplify that to 30 games pitched rather than their being weird scenarios where a guy has pitched in more than 30 games, less than 50 innings, but fewer than 30 relief appearances (It happened the first year BA implemented the stipulation and they ruled the guy eligible).
|
|
|
|
Post by Cubbies on Jan 6, 2013 11:05:43 GMT -5
Why not just continue to follow the Baseball America standard for graduation? -130 ABs -50 IP -30 Relief Appearances We can simplify that to 30 games pitched rather than their being weird scenarios where a guy has pitched in more than 30 games, less than 50 innings, but fewer than 30 relief appearances (It happened the first year BA implemented the stipulation and they ruled the guy eligible). Isn't that basically what our new rule is? I mean, I guess in your terminology a pitcher can get into a couple games as an SP or PH and still maintain 1st year status, but that's not a very large difference in games played, and keeping it at just "30 games" simplifies it. |
|
|
|
Post by Elephanti! on Jan 6, 2013 12:10:23 GMT -5
Why not just continue to follow the Baseball America standard for graduation? -130 ABs -50 IP -30 Relief Appearances We can simplify that to 30 games pitched rather than their being weird scenarios where a guy has pitched in more than 30 games, less than 50 innings, but fewer than 30 relief appearances (It happened the first year BA implemented the stipulation and they ruled the guy eligible). Isn't that basically what our new rule is? I mean, I guess in your terminology a pitcher can get into a couple games as an SP or PH and still maintain 1st year status, but that's not a very large difference in games played, and keeping it at just "30 games" simplifies it. The new rule affects position players though. BA implemented theirs to address the RP situation that you brought up. Simplifying it to 30 games pitched is cool with me, but I don't like the standard 30 games played (meaning for any player). And I'm using BA because that's where the 130 AB/50 IP mandates came from. They've become industry standard substitutes for service time, so I think we should just follow suit. |
|
|
|
Post by Cubbies on Jan 6, 2013 13:14:52 GMT -5
The new rule affects position players though. BA implemented theirs to address the RP situation that you brought up. Simplifying it to 30 games pitched is cool with me, but I don't like the standard 30 games played (meaning for any player). And I'm using BA because that's where the 130 AB/50 IP mandates came from. They've become industry standard substitutes for service time, so I think we should just follow suit. This is sorta funny. Not your reply, but the fact that I am the one who benefited from this rule, but even when talking to the committee, I was the one most in favor of closing this loophole. Do you also feel there should be no limit at all for games played for position players? Or do you feel like the limit should be increased? Like in the Espinosa example, do you feel he deserved to earn a year of service time for playing in 121 games in one season? |
|
|
|
Post by bluejaysgm on Jan 6, 2013 13:36:20 GMT -5
I think there needs to be something for position players. If you don't like the 30 games another idea is to just use a set # of weeks on our 25 man roster (not counting weeks officially placed on DL).
If a player is on a 25 man roster for more than ___ weeks they gain a year of service.
If you do this you get rid of all AB/IP requirements. DMBO uses 6 weeks for their league. You have 6 weeks to decide on a guy. If he is active for a 7th week he gains a year of service.
|
|
|
|
Post by Elephanti! on Jan 6, 2013 14:25:56 GMT -5
The new rule affects position players though. BA implemented theirs to address the RP situation that you brought up. Simplifying it to 30 games pitched is cool with me, but I don't like the standard 30 games played (meaning for any player). And I'm using BA because that's where the 130 AB/50 IP mandates came from. They've become industry standard substitutes for service time, so I think we should just follow suit. This is sorta funny. Not your reply, but the fact that I am the one who benefited from this rule, but even when talking to the committee, I was the one most in favor of closing this loophole. Do you also feel there should be no limit at all for games played for position players? Or do you feel like the limit should be increased? Like in the Espinosa example, do you feel he deserved to earn a year of service time for playing in 121 games in one season? I don't have a problem with Espinosa keeping his rookie status. If we do need something for a position player, I'd suggest 81 - half a season's worth of games |
|
|
|
Post by Elephanti! on Jan 6, 2013 14:30:20 GMT -5
I think there needs to be something for position players. If you don't like the 30 games another idea is to just use a set # of weeks on our 25 man roster (not counting weeks officially placed on DL). If a player is on a 25 man roster for more than ___ weeks they gain a year of service. If you do this you get rid of all AB/IP requirements. DMBO uses 6 weeks for their league. You have 6 weeks to decide on a guy. If he is active for a 7th week he gains a year of service. DMBO also has an automated portal that could keep track of something like that fairly easily. Service time is usually ignored because it's a daunting task to keep track of. |
|
|
|
Post by raysgm on Jan 6, 2013 20:30:37 GMT -5
I went through all the rules today and made as many notes to close loopholes as I could (although it was on a flight directly behind a crying baby, so my concentration was not at it's highest). I just emailed the files to Joe, but since this particular rule is getting a lot of discussion, I felt I'd post it here.
Here is the amendment I made:
"A player in his first year of service (XXX) may be on the 25 man roster, appearing in less than 130 at-bats, 50 innings pitched, 30 games pitched, or 300 defensive innings played (post-season stats do not count, but any needed play-in games to determine play-off teams or seeding will count) and still retain “rookie status” (1st) the following season."
It's obviously up for discussion, but this was just the idea I had today.
|
|
|
|
Post by sanfran on Jan 6, 2013 20:37:07 GMT -5
My thoughts align with Jeff's. Wanted to keep tracking eligibility easy through game appearances and felt that it primarily affected relievers. It's easy to stash a quality reliever for most of a year without using up his rookie status. If you want to burn a roster spot on a defensive replacement, I don't see that helping the team enough to skew things. We're more focused offensively than defensively as a simulator.
30 games seems right to me for pitchers.
30 games for hitters could be 1 month - a slightly different scale.
|
|
|
|
Post by bluejaysgm on Jan 6, 2013 20:57:29 GMT -5
I think maybe we are trying to make it too easy to keep a guy at rookie status.
I'm good w/ the 30 games for everyone, but if your going to make it different then I'd say make it 60 games for hitters. That doubles the # of games and a player could avg. 2 AB's per game and still have rookie status.
|
|
|
|
Post by LA Angels GM on Jan 6, 2013 23:16:06 GMT -5
That's it. Lockout the players until we get this resolved.
|
|
|
|
Post by raysgm on Jan 7, 2013 0:02:01 GMT -5
That's it. Lockout the players until we get this resolved. I logged on specifically to say that I got a good chuckle out of that one. |
|
|
|
Post by Cubbies on Jan 7, 2013 0:26:02 GMT -5
If this were Facebook I would've "liked" that comment myself, Connor.
|
|
|
|
Post by Texas GM on Jan 11, 2013 16:59:31 GMT -5
I agree with Jeff here. The rule is made to fit each type of player. 50IP is fair to SP, 30GP is fair to RP and 130 AB's is fair to any batter that's being called up in September or to fill in for injuries during the year. The rule is great, but it just needs a dividing line between pitchers and positional players. Seems like a no-brainer.
|
|
|
|
Post by Elephanti! on Apr 27, 2013 23:35:53 GMT -5
So are we keeping the 30 game standard for position players? It affects how I will rank Zunino on the pinch hitter portion of the roster file.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 28, 2013 18:00:25 GMT -5
So are we keeping the 30 game standard for position players? It affects how I will rank Zunino on the pinch hitter portion of the roster file. I am curious about this myself. There were conversations about changing the rookie service benchmarks for position and pitchers. Since I have 3 on my opening roster I would like an answer to that sooner rather than later. |
|
|
|
Post by Pirates GM on May 9, 2013 20:05:57 GMT -5
Hey guys, did we ever get a final ruling on service time this year for xxx players? I already have 2 situations where I'm concerned about it. Thanks,
JIm
|
|
|
|
Post by raysgm on May 9, 2013 23:47:16 GMT -5
Hey guys, did we ever get a final ruling on service time this year for xxx players? I already have 2 situations where I'm concerned about it. Thanks, JIm I am curious about this as well. |
|
|
|
Post by raysgm on May 11, 2013 22:46:37 GMT -5
Hey guys, did we ever get a final ruling on service time this year for xxx players? I already have 2 situations where I'm concerned about it. Thanks, JIm I am curious about this as well. Anything? Joe? |
|
|
|
Post by Cubbies on May 12, 2013 0:47:58 GMT -5
Something is in the works. The committee has an email going around right now. We've agreed to raise the number of games for batters, just trying to decide on exactly what we're going to raise it to. And since it is early in the season, we will have it take effect immediately.
|
|
|
|
Post by Pirates GM on May 12, 2013 6:06:10 GMT -5
Cool. I'd just like to throw out that I'm considering it for Mike Olt and Hector Santiago, just in case I can get any retroactivity allowance while I wait for the actual decision. Thanks for the response,
JIm
|
|
|
|
Post by Cubbies on May 12, 2013 16:02:23 GMT -5
We should have a decision within the next day or two. Before this week's MPs are due.
|
|
|
|
Post by Cubbies on May 14, 2013 11:01:33 GMT -5
Updated 05/14/13 to reflect immediate change in Service Time Games Played for hitters.
|
|
