|
|
Post by Texas (A) on Feb 8, 2016 19:25:50 GMT -5
Sign: Yulieski 1-Gourriel R/R 6/9/1984 Release: Bryan Morris, RP Is he eligible to be signed ? Under what league rule ? He may be, I'm just asking because I didn't think he was. Thanks |
|
|
|
Post by Mariners GM (A) on Feb 8, 2016 20:41:50 GMT -5
I consider him a draft eligible free agent (ala Jose Fernandez, Kenta Maeda, etc.). Just as foreign players are usually treated - anyone draft eligible can be drafted (or signed after the draft) but has to sign with a major league team prior to first pitch of MLB. If they are not signed they have to be released by the BCMBL team and are draft eligible the following year. That is why I only signed the older Gourriel as the younger is reported not likely to sign until after October 19 to avoid bonus pool limitations.
If anyone thinks this is not consistent with how we've handled in the past - it's certainly open to discussion.
|
|
|
|
Post by Texas (A) on Feb 9, 2016 11:44:45 GMT -5
I consider him a draft eligible free agent (ala Jose Fernandez, Kenta Maeda, etc.). Just as foreign players are usually treated - anyone draft eligible can be drafted (or signed after the draft) but has to sign with a major league team prior to first pitch of MLB. If they are not signed they have to be released by the BCMBL team and are draft eligible the following year. That is why I only signed the older Gourriel as the younger is reported not likely to sign until after October 19 to avoid bonus pool limitations. If anyone thinks this is not consistent with how we've handled in the past - it's certainly open to discussion. My humble opinion follows: I believe this signing adds a new dynamic to the adding of players to BCMBL rosters. Up to this point, all player signings by BCMBL teams were limited to players that were under real life MLB contracts. Indeed, unsigned players, who were eligible for the BCMBL draft ( whatever that eligibility entails ) were allowed to be drafted. IF the drafted player signed a MLB contract by real life MLB opening day, then that player was eligible to be signed and added to the BCMBL team that drafted him ( or traded for their rights ). Key point here is signed and added at the point he signs a real life contract. Up to that point , that player is only " provisionally " on a team. Any player eligible for the BCMBL draft ( again, whatever that eligibility specifically entails ), that is not drafted, goes back to the status of being eligible to be signed by a BCMBL team at such time that player signs a real life MLB contract. There are too many issues involved here to allow this signing. For example, can an unsigned player be signed in October and November or even during the season ? Gourriel is an example. I'm presuming he was eligible to be drafted last year , and the year before, and the year before that. Under the reasoning of this attempted signing, any BCMBL team would have been OK to sign him during any of those times I just mentioned ? I think most of us GM's thought not. However, he could have been drafted any of those previous years, in the hopes that he signed by opening day. Finally, and, maybe most importantly, allowing unsigned players to only be drafted limits the amount of unsigned players that can obtained by any one team, as each team is limited by the number of draft picks it has. That is the way I understand our rules up to this point. If BCMBL GM's want to change that, that is open for discussion. |
|
|
|
Post by Twins GM (A) on Feb 9, 2016 12:24:24 GMT -5
Well, I didn't attempt to sign him because I didn't think unsigned players could be claimed outside of the draft. That's not to say that my understanding is/was correct.
What makes sense in my opinion is that players who were OWNED by an MLB team prior to the previous BCMBL draft, and who make their stateside debuts are eligible to be signed as FA's. My understanding was that we can't sign any player (even those already owned by an MLB team) who has not yet made their stateside debut except for during the draft, and that makes sense to me.
Any player that signs an MLB contract after the previous BCMBL draft would not be eligible to be signed until the next BCMBL draft. The alternative to that would be that players falling into that category would fall into the waiver claim area.
I'm not sure how to categorize players coming out of retirement and signing - for example I just signed Carlos Quentin - perhaps that transaction should be invalidated by the same token.
Maybe this should be discussed in an E-mail thread, so that everyone can see it, as it would be important for everyone to know exactly which players can be claimed, when, and how.
|
|
|
|
Post by Mariners GM (A) on Feb 9, 2016 15:44:02 GMT -5
There has been some recent discussion around the attempted signing of Yulieski 1-Gourriel.
It's an open discussion with different interpretations of how the rule works today (and how maybe it should work).
Please see below comments and feel free to share.
|
|
|
|
Post by Mariners GM (A) on Feb 9, 2016 16:02:21 GMT -5
As the rules have evolved over the years - this is my current interpretation.
Early league rule: Any player drafted must sign with a major league team prior to the end of the draft or not be eligible until the following years draft. This was changed due to the fact that many foreign free agents didn't always sign by the time we were finishing (usually around the new year) - and players with usable projections were being ineligible to be used. We then changed the date to March 1, and eventually to Opening Day to extend it out.
Our draft pool is usually made up of all Amateur draft picks from the previous year + all foreign free agents (signed or unsigned to this point) between opening day the previous year and opening day the current year. It's a clearly defined window. Maeda was draft eligible in 2014, however when he didn't sign - he was dropped and added to the 2015 pool. If he was drafted again, but didn't sign by opening day - rinse and repeat.
My underlying logic on this is that all undrafted (draft eligible) players are free to be signed as free agents. Look no further than the processing of the Giants free agent signings of Yordani Linares and Alexei Bell - just last week. It's obvious that I had been operating under the above assumption from an admin perspective - and retrospectively, could have process similar transactions in years past. I don't see an issue with gambling a roster spot for top Cuban players every year with the hope that they declare and sign during the window of the draft and opening day.
But again - interesting discussion / interpretations here. We'll obviously come out with a hard and fast rule going forward. My current concern is that players who get usable projections and wind up signing have to sit idle in the database for an entire season.
|
|
|
|
Post by Twins GM (A) on Feb 9, 2016 18:39:10 GMT -5
So, you are saying that all unsigned guys who didn't get drafted are eligible to be signed between the end of the draft and Opening Day, but if not, they are ineligible to be signed again until the next draft? Wasn't there a rule that we couldn't sign guys as FA's who have not played any ball in the minor/major league system? It's fine with me either way, but it certainly has been murky and would be good to clear up.
In the future, my two cents is that it would be good to not allow FA signings of unsigned guys and make them subject to waivers when they sign with a team (or play in the states) to give the lesser teams the first crack at them. It would be a way to try to help parity.
|
|
|
|
Post by Texas (A) on Feb 9, 2016 22:07:18 GMT -5
So, you are saying that all unsigned guys who didn't get drafted are eligible to be signed between the end of the draft and Opening Day, but if not, they are ineligible to be signed again until the next draft? Wasn't there a rule that we couldn't sign guys as FA's who have not played any ball in the minor/major league system? It's fine with me either way, but it certainly has been murky and would be good to clear up. In the future, my two cents is that it would be good to not allow FA signings of unsigned guys and make them subject to waivers when they sign with a team (or play in the states) to give the lesser teams the first crack at them. It would be a way to try to help parity. agree |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 10, 2016 11:34:13 GMT -5
I realize I'm the new guy around here but this seems absolutely bonkers. Can I sign a college player? Or a high school kid? If you're allowed to sign a Cuban player who hasn't even signed with an MLB team yet, why aren't teams allowed to sign players like Wilin Rosario when they go to a foreign league?
If you're going to go down to this road you might as well just throw out the draft and allow people to sign whoever they want, whenever they want.
|
|
|
|
Post by Mariners GM (A) on Feb 10, 2016 13:39:39 GMT -5
I realize I'm the new guy around here but this seems absolutely bonkers. Can I sign a college player? Or a high school kid? If you're allowed to sign a Cuban player who hasn't even signed with an MLB team yet, why aren't teams allowed to sign players like Wilin Rosario when they go to a foreign league? If you're going to go down to this road you might as well just throw out the draft and allow people to sign whoever they want, whenever they want. Craig - you can absolutely sign Wilin Rosario in hopes he has a change of heart - he's just not eligible to play during the season unless he's in a MLB organization. In the past, you would have been allowed (and still can till this point) occupy a roster spot with him for as long as you would like. What I was saying previously was that all draft eligible players have been considered free agents. Upon the cut off (opening day) any player not affiliated with an MLB organization becomes ineligible to be owned until the following draft. At least those are the rules we have been operating under - if for no other reason, because there wasn't necessarily a rule against it. You can still sign undrafted free agents all year long. Where it does get a little murky - is that we've historically allowed teams to sign guys in independent leaguers when there's been news that MLB teams were sniffing around them. Hasn't happened often - but I can assure it has been allowed over the years. So there really does not seem to be any issue with how MLB amateur draft players are treated. They are draft eligible until after our draft - there's a 48 hour waiver period - and then they are unrestricted free agents. Foreign players make it a little grayer. Here are the facts: We treat them as draft eligible today if they were not with an MLB organization by opening day of the previous year. That takes into consideration all bonus pool teenagers, Asian imports, etc. If said foreign player does not sign prior the first pitch of the first game of the MLB season - the teams owning rights are released and he's ineligible to be owned until the following years amateur draft. What we need to figure out: How do we handle foreign free agents (or independent league free agents) that become available after the amateur draft concludes. Is it fair that we treat them one way during the draft (able to draft anyone you want, regardless of team affiliation) but treat them differently after the draft? I don't lean either way. I just assumed we treated them like the amateur players up until opening day. Putting them through a waiver process once they sign a major league contract (assuming after the draft) is not a bad solution - it's just not how we've handled it to this point. From a parity standpoint, since we have a rolling waiver order - it's not necessarily guaranteed to impact league parity. Also - to Craig's point above - we would need a consideration for players who have previously been affiliated with an MLB organization and how they are treated. Lastly - with process that deviates from how it's been handled historically (right or wrong) - we will need to agree on any retroactive signings that should have been ineligible. I'm surprised it hasn't been brought up previously, to be honest. |
|
|
|
Post by Twins GM (A) on Feb 10, 2016 18:13:23 GMT -5
Lastly - with process that deviates from how it's been handled historically (right or wrong) - we will need to agree on any retroactive signings that should have been ineligible. I'm surprised it hasn't been brought up previously, to be honest. I never noticed that people were making FA signings of people who weren't owned by MLB teams before. I would have brought it up but this is the first time I noticed. I believed for years that the only time unsigned players could be "claimed" by BCMBL teams was during the draft. In addition, I thought that we couldn't even make FA claims on players who were owned but had not made their professional debut in a USA minor league. What I believe should happen is basically what I thought was already the case above. Any players who are signed by an MLB team after the BCMBL draft and before Opening Day should be subject to waiver claim. Any player signed by an MLB team after Opening Day is not eligible to be signed unless a ZIPS projection is forthcoming, in which case they'd be subject to waivers. In all other cases, the player would be ineligible to be signed until the draft. This should probably apply to players coming out of retirement as well. As far as retroactive moves, I'd vote that my signing of Quentin, and the Mariners' of Y. Gourriel and any other signings of players that are unowned by an MLB team in the last month or so (since the BCMBL draft) should be invalidated, and they can reclaim back the players they dropped to make room if they so choose. Obviously, the other option would be that all the previous signings made up until now are allowed. Actually, I signed Quentin after there was news of his signing. Not sure if it was confirmed or not by then, but in general, I think the situations of "first one reading the news gets to sign the player" are unfair and that's what happened with Quentin, and I assume, Gourriel. |
|
|
|
Post by Giants GM (A) - Blue Jays co on Feb 15, 2016 16:44:50 GMT -5
Just my 2 cents on the issue(though I do have a couple signings so might be biased).
I thought that anyone was eligible to be drafted. Then if not drafted that anyone is eligible to be signed as a FA. If player drafted doesn't sign with an MLB club before opening day, then that player would be released and eligible in the next years draft. That would also go for foreign guys signing during the season, meaning they couldn't be signed and would have to wait til the next draft.
In my eyes it doesn't make sense to have players that end up having a projection and not being on a roster. That could potentially happen with some of these foreign guys if they are ineligible to be signed.
As for the first come, first serve signing. I think that you should be rewarded for finding out a foreign player might be signing with an MLB club before anyone else does. I had to take gambles on these guys. I had to cut players and hope that these guys actually sign before the season starts.
|
|
|
|
Post by Mariners GM (A) on Feb 16, 2016 9:17:45 GMT -5
What Larry described above is how we've treated this historically. I guess the main question is - do we want to write a new (formal) process for handling going forward or do we want to immortalize the above.
Being a more casual league - we have stayed away from the first-come-first serve mentality when dealing with projections being released as it's quite unfair. That being said - it didn't stop teams from signing guys the night before in hopes that their guy would come out with a nice projection. Of course - this carried a risk of having to have an open spot or drop a guy from your 50-man to accommodate - as Larry pointed out. With regards to foreign free agents - this has probably never been a huge issue previously because most of the 16-year old boys sign during the summer (when they are ineligible to signed in BCMBL), or get drafted during the winter because they have a big enough name.
I really hope that Gourriel doesn't sign before opening day - only because it involves my team. Had it been any other team, I would have a hard time vetoing the transaction strictly based on the precedent. Anyone who has been paying attention over the years would have a pretty big bone to pick if we vetoed their transaction out of the blue after allowing this process previously.
|
|
|
|
Post by Twins GM (A) on Feb 16, 2016 12:03:31 GMT -5
If several people were under the understanding that unsigned players can be signed (outside of the draft), then leave it how it is, at least retroactively. For the future, I still think it would be better if players that sign after the draft are subject to waivers, but that would be something to vote on.
My bigger worry is that very few people seem to care one way or the other.
|
|
|
|
Post by Texas (A) on Feb 16, 2016 16:01:52 GMT -5
If several people were under the understanding that unsigned players can be signed (outside of the draft), then leave it how it is, at least retroactively. For the future, I still think it would be better if players that sign after the draft are subject to waivers, but that would be something to vote on. My bigger worry is that very few people seem to care one way or the other. I've been in this league for a few years, and I am going to disagree with both John and Larry about these type of signings previously being allowed; this issue was discussed in prior years, and unsigned players were not allowed to be signed, ONLY drafted. John is reaching in his interpretation of this league's rules and history; this signing would set a precedent. I would not say that John is incorrect in his interpretation, it's just a reach from where the league's been to this signing. Having stated the above, I would not veto against John's signing or any other signings like this Gurerriel signing that I may have missed. I fully believe and trust that John is interpreting this issue in good faith. I agree with Dave of the Twins when he states that it is more troubling that most GM's have not chimed in with their opinion on this matter. I myself, have been less involved the past couple of years, and, I may have missed a minor signing or two, or, just maybe, become out of touch with the league rulings. I think we need to clearly state the rule on this issue. Something along the lines of this it would seem: " From the start of the yearly draft until the end of the draft, any player in the world, not on a BCMBL roster, can be drafted. No signings of players can occur during the draft.
From the end of the draft until the first pitch of the season, any player in the world can be signed that is not on a BCMBL roster. If any player, either drafted or signed between the start of the draft and the first pitch of the season, that did not have a MLB or U.S. minor league contract when signed , has not signed a MLB or a U. S. minor league contract, that player must be released. No player may be signed between the first pitch of any season ( about April ) until the end of the draft occurring at the conclusion of such season ( about December 1st ) that is not already under a MLB or U.S. minor league contract. " |
|
|
|
Post by Texas (A) on Feb 16, 2016 16:25:14 GMT -5
In re-reading what I wrote above, I realized the wording would have to change a bit because we do allow signings of players ( including ZIPS ) during the draft.
|
|
|
|
Post by Mariners GM (A) on Feb 17, 2016 14:27:07 GMT -5
Mike - I can only say that as the person that does the majority of the roster moves on the admin side - I cannot remember a time in which a signing was disallowed.
To truly go back to precedent - we would need to look at how we handled Takashi Saito signing with the Dodgers in Feb. 2006! I believe that would have been the last time this issue has come up that I can remember.
I do think you have captured my understanding in your rule proposal above Mike. The question would be if we would continue down that course or have to run a player through waivers when they sign. The only issue I see with that is if a player signs a week before anyone realizes - do they still go through waivers once someone realizes or is it an automatic clock from when they physically signed?
|
|
|
|
Post by oaklandgm (A) on Feb 17, 2016 20:05:42 GMT -5
I was under the assumption that any international player signed after the draft had to wait until the next year's draft to be taken. With that being said I don't see why the signing shouldn't be processed, I'll just make sure I sign any like him moving forward :-)
|
|
|
|
Post by oaklandgm (A) on Feb 17, 2016 20:06:35 GMT -5
Might be a good idea to vote on it and make sure everyone is still active and participating
|
|
|
|
Post by Cincinnati Reds on Feb 18, 2016 10:42:41 GMT -5
Might be a good idea to vote on it and make sure everyone is still active and participating Leave the country for a week and everything falls apart. My working impression, as I know there were some discussions and tweaks a couple of years ago. After the completion of the yearly BCMBL draft anyone could be signed by an BCMBL team (even me), but if they were not under MLB/MiLB contract by opening day they had to be released. Any players who were unsigned by an MLB/MiLB team on opening day would not be eligible for transactions until the next year BCMBL draft and would become free game once the draft was completed if they were not selected. |
|
|
|
Post by Rockies GM (A) on Feb 18, 2016 15:28:05 GMT -5
Been in the league since the beginning and was considering signing one or both of the Gourriel brothers, but my first thought was that they'd be available in next year's draft. That was as far as I thought about it.
On the other hand, my understanding of the rule mirrors what Larry posted. That any player could be drafted or signed (after the draft) during the offseason. If that player had not signed a contract prior to the first pitch of the regular season, he was ineligible for rostering and had to be released.
I guess what I'm saying is that my first instinct might have been that these signings are ineligible, but after considering the current rule I don't think they are. Of course, it's moot if the players don't sign before opening day.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 19, 2016 10:37:11 GMT -5
If we're voting I agree with the idea that any player who is not signed by a MLB team, or was not signed by a MLB team the previous season, should not be eligible to be drafted or signed, until the following year's draft. At least this way there are some talented players in the draft pool and it's not all 18 year olds.
In other words, you can't draft or sign the Gourriels this year. Have to wait until next year's draft, assuming they sign with an MLB team.
You can draft or sign Ian Desmond even though he isn't under contract because he was signed by a MLB team last year.
You can't draft or sign Derek Jeter, if he announced today he is making a comeback, because he wasn't signed by a MLB team last year.
Pretty simple and this way it prevents the game from devolving into who can get to a keyboard fastest.
|
|
|
|
Post by Mariners GM (A) on Feb 19, 2016 21:27:30 GMT -5
Jeter wouldn't be draft eligible as the draft is only for that years amateur players + foreign born signees/potential signees for that year. Jeter can technically still be signed today if you'd like - just at the risk of a roster spot.
Another good example would be Mark Beuhrle - who has never 'officially' retired but has reportedly turned down a $15M 1-year deal (essentially making him retired). Any team is willing to own him or sign him with a hope and a prayer. After all, 36 year old starters with mid-4 era's don't grow on trees.
|
|
|
|
Post by oaklandgm (A) on Feb 20, 2016 22:23:18 GMT -5
Jeter wouldn't be draft eligible as the draft is only for that years amateur players + foreign born signees/potential signees for that year. Jeter can technically still be signed today if you'd like - just at the risk of a roster spot. Another good example would be Mark Beuhrle - who has never 'officially' retired but has reportedly turned down a $15M 1-year deal (essentially making him retired). Any team is willing to own him or sign him with a hope and a prayer. After all, 36 year old starters with mid-4 era's don't grow on trees. luckily for me I've got the best in JA Happ  |
|
