LGP Fantasy Baseball League

[beerman]

I agree that this isn't really a big deal one way or another. I think the purpose of getting a free player is to help you keep a full roster without having to burn a FBY every time there's an injury. If you had to burn one of those each time you'd basically have to play with a short roster during some injuries because you'd burn through them in a hurry most likely.

I really do understand the argument for allowing someone to keep the player, you made a good pick up and are rewarded but there's no way for this to ever hurt you either. There's no risk involved, there's nothing to go wrong you are basically getting a 15, 30, 60 day tryout on a player.

I prefer not doing it but if we do I would propose that we either keep it simple: You can keep them for the remainder of the season but you can't keep them past that year. Or if we want to have the ability to keep them multiple years we add some more FBY to each persons pool of them and you have to sign each player you pick up for a DL replacement to a contract at the time of grabbing them in FA. Then once the injury time is up you can buy them out or buy another player on your roster out. If you tender a DL replacement a 2 year deal when you sign them then you have to buy them out at 2 years if you don't want to keep them.

[Idoit40fans]

Yeah the other thing I can say against this is that its not really like you're making a smart pickup over others. You passed up on him just as many times as everyone else in the draft, you just happened to be the one who had your player get hurt. Its a matter of chance, not smart team management. I feel like this league is setup to minimize the luck involved with fantasy sports as much as possible. Like I said earlier, its counter to the setup of the league to reward a no-thought, no-risk pickup like this.

[MWB]

There's a measure of luck and skill in every transaction you make. Sure, you passed over the player previously as much as anyone else, but if you pick him up then you decided he's better than the other FAs for some reason. One thing about this league is there are always decent MLB players on waivers that can be had, because the MLB roster size isn't that large.

[Mr. Colby]

You don't lose the guy who went on IR though, he's still protected from everyone else.

Yeah it really isn't a big deal either way, but my point is yes, he's still protected from everyone else, but everyone else already had a fair crack at him via the draft and via using a buyout on one of their own guys

[Mr. Colby]

I'd rather keep the guy the rest of the year than add more FBO years

[Idoit40fans]

Why would FBO years be added?

[beerman]

I said to add them if we wanted the ability to keep A DL callup for multiple years. In this case there would be no free DL pickup you would have to sign them to a contract and buy them out each time there was an injury so we would probably have to add a couple more years in that case.

I don't like doing it this way but I think it's the only fair way to do it if you want to keep someone for multiple years because at least you have to take the risk at the time of picking him up.

[beerman]

I think we should vote on whether or not we want to do this before the year starts.

My vote is against being able to retain a free DL pickup. You'll still have the ability to pick said player back up after dropping them you just might have some competition for it (I also highly doubt any player will be such a hot commodity that you have a high risk in losing them).

Hopefully more than just 5 of us weigh in...

[Troy Loney]

What's the debate here?

[Kraftster]

I agree with beerman and Idoit, I think. Its nice if you grab a guy who turns out to be a hot commodity who you can then sign for multiple years when your DL player returns, but I don't think it fits with the rest of the league.

A good example last year might be Sergio Santos. I had Matt Thornton, and he sucked so I made room to add Santos, but I only signed him for one year because I wasn't sure whether he was only going to be good for four saves over two weeks or what. If I had had an injury, I could have picked up him on basically a free tryout while a guy was out. Heck, say it was Brett Anderson who was gone for the year and I added Santos for him. Now its late in the season and I see he's got a bright future so I sign him to three years without having to put him back on the wire.

It basically allows you to take a chance on a guy at the earliest possible stage without the risk of making a contract decision at the time (when likely no one would sign the player for multiple years) but allowing you to potentially lock the guy up later. I can think of a bunch of impactful guys last year who wouldn't have been in the draft if they were picked up like this -- Alex Gordon, Alexi Ogando, Sergio Santos, etc.

My vote would be that you only get the free DL replacement player so long as the player remains on the DL. I think if someone else would get hurt in the meantime you could transfer the free pick up to that other player if he ends up staying hurt longer, but I don't think you should ever be able to sign these guys to contracts.

[Troy Loney]

I agree with Beerman. I can't seem to grasp my head around the logic of the way we had it in the past. But I don't think you should get the guy on trial period.

[Kraftster]

Red Sox, can you please place Crawford on the DL? Thanks.

[Idoit40fans]

I definitely think you can keep that player as long as you have someone on the DL, but i'm against being able to sign them.

[Kraftster]

That's 4 against being able to sign.

[MWB]

Would you be able to pick up a replacement guy and immediately be able to sign him?

Example- I picked up Liriano as a replacement. Could I immediately sign him to a two year deal, or will we only allow that in regular add/drop situations?

[Idoit40fans]

You could sign him to a 2 year deal, but you'd have to have 2 years available to sign him, so you'd have to have either left those years open at the beginning of the year or cut 2 years worth of contracts. You'd also have to cut someone to make space on the roster for him since we only have 22 people under contract.

[Kraftster]

Agreed, you could always add him as just a free agent pick up/sign him to a deal. Just would eventually have to make room for him on the roster.

[beerman]

I don't see any problem with that as long as you stay under the cap with the move (since you'll have an extra player you are trying to squeeze in). It doesn't bother me at all if you want to hand out a contract in advance of making the move because you aren't taking advantage of the free injury replacement you are tendering a contract and you'd have to buy it out if it doesn't go well.

I think the problem is doing it with the benefit of hindsight which is the case in the original question yesterday.

I see the two situations as pretty different.. If you have someone get injured and sign a player to a deal then you get the possible benefit of keeping them if they get hot/breakout. If you just want to get a injury fill-in and do so without a contract then you have to drop them when you have a healthy roster.

[Mr. Colby]

OK so then if you pick a guy up as a DL replacement, you can sign him immediately and buy someone out when your injured player returns. Otherwise if you're using a guy as a no-contract replacement, he has to be dropped when the player becomes healthy.

I'm fine with that.

[Idoit40fans]

I guess thats what people are saying. I still feel that there should be no more than 20 people under contract at a time, including those on the DL.

[MWB]

I guess thats what people are saying. I still feel that there should be no more than 20 people under contract at a time, including those on the DL.

22, right?

For players who have already been picked up as replacements will we have the option of signing them to contracts once this is finalized?

It seems that the only bit of discrepancy left is if you can 1) sign the player to contract and immediately buy someone out so you only have 22 guys under contract at any one time or 2) sign a player to contract and wait until a guy comes back from injury to buy someone out.

I agree that players should have to be signed to a contract or dropped once players come back from injury. Of the above options, I'd go with option 2. If a team has cap space to sign players, but was unlucky enough to have others injured, why be penalized and have to drop another player? You still only have 22 players that are active and would not be allowed to have more than 22 active players under contract at any time.

[Kraftster]

I'm definitely not opposed to being over 22 players under contract. With 18 month injuries being a real possibility, I think I should have the option of signing a guy for multiple years to fill a roster spot if I know I'm going to be missing a guy for the entire season.

So, the options would be:

Player goes on DL.

(1) Call up a farm player to fill the spot for the player on the DL. I think we said you can switch the farm player only once in a week. This player has to be sent back down when the injured player returns.
(2) Pick up an injury fill-in player without having to sign that player to a contract. This player has to be released when the injured player returns.
(3) Sign a free agent to a contract. Eventually have to drop someone else to make room.

Right?

[ulf]

Say you never picked the guy up in the 1st place...you could drop someone and sign that guy any second you want, right? But now because you picked him up for a week or two you aren't allowed? Not a fan of that. Too many holes in that rule.

[Idoit40fans]

If you want to go to a 23rd player under contract, I feel that you should need to put the injured player on the long term list we started last year, where you commit him to being out for the season, thus freeing up a roster spot and 1 cap year. Under that scenario, we were taking guy's off our roster so that we could free up a DL spot.

[Letang Is The Truth]

can someone break down with the discussion is here? it seems like the lines are starting to blur a little bit and i can't tell what the decision point it