An owner in my league is campaigning for being able to sign a free agent without having to release someone in the event a player on your roster is traded to the "other" league. To me, it's basic roto that you must release someone in order to sign a free agent. Plus, why should one owner have to release someone when another wouldn't have to? And in theory, it opens the door for teams to load up on free agents-to-be and likely trade targets. How do you guys see it? Thanks.
Maybe I'm being dense, but what is the "other" league? Are you talking about an NL/AL only league? If so, I don't understand the question. Maybe give me an example of what you're talking about?
Yes. We're Al-only. The way we're set up, in order to sign a free agent, you have to release someone who has been on your active roster for at least seven days. So say one of your players gets traded to the NL - they want to be able to sign a free agent to replace him without having to release someone else (whereas another owner would be required to). We use a sealed bid process every Friday.
The more I think about it, the more I should just go along with it, I think. We also talked about an offseason compensation process a la MLB, but it seems like my owners are more in favor of this.
I'm confused also. I don't see what the problem is. If a team is losing a player to "the other league", that means he will have an opening in his roster correct? If you have an opening already, why would you need to drop a player to add a FA? Wouldn't that still leave you with a hole in the roster?
You're right to think of it in simplistic terms, pjalst. It's basically the s*** out of luck option vs. flexibility. The only hangups are the potential inequities and loopholes (plus you would save a FAAB dollar that it costs to release a player). Like I said, the more I think about it, the more I'll just go along with it.
Our roster limit is 40, but when you sign a FA, he goes directly to your active roster. And given the SOL mentality, that means over the course of the season, your 40-man might dwindle to 35 or whatever if players in your reserves are traded to the NL, released, etc. Sorry for the confusion.
pjalst wrote:I'm confused also. I don't see what the problem is. If a team is losing a player to "the other league", that means he will have an opening in his roster correct? If you have an opening already, why would you need to drop a player to add a FA? Wouldn't that still leave you with a hole in the roster?
-Sabathia gets traded to the Brewers. Owner now has a P slot open. Old rules: his options would be to call up someone from his reserves, make a trade or sign a FA on Friday (meaning he would have to release someone else on his active roster, sign the P and call up someone from his reserves to take the place of the released player). New rules: his options are the same, only he could sign a FA "for free" to take the spot of Sabathia. FAAB bid would still apply, but he would not have to release someone else besides Sabathia.
-Sabathia gets traded to the Brewers. Owner now has a P slot open. Old rules: his options would be to call up someone from his reserves, make a trade or sign a FA on Friday (meaning he would have to release someone else on his active roster, sign the P and call up someone from his reserves to take the place of the released player). New rules: his options are the same, only he could sign a FA "for free" to take the spot of Sabathia. FAAB bid would still apply, but he would not have to release someone else besides Sabathia.
You're right...keep it simple.
Ah, you never mentioned anything about active and reserve roster in your original post?
Little confused like all else. But in the NL-Only league in which I commish, when a player is traded to the AL that player continues to accrue stats for rest of the season. Then the owner can address the hole in the offseason. Our league just finds it unfair for a season to be imploded because one or two of your big guys get traded in MLB. And in the case of Sabathia, going from Indians to Brewers to Yanks in one season would have kept him eligible to keep for the owner because he started the next season in the appropriate year.
In another NL-Only league that has long-term contracts, you accrue stats for the traded player for the rest of the current season. The next season SOL.
There is a league option to do just that and I personally highly suggest it.
Cafe Home
Fantasy Football
Fantasy Basketball
Fantasy Hockey
by 23 » Mon Dec 05, 2011 11:47 pm 
