Moneyball Baseball League Chat

Can we get one more YES vote on this slight change and put this rule to rest?

BE IT PROPOSED TO REVISE THE ARBITRATION RULE from:

Section 9.10 ARBITRATION: A player with an expiring contract who has more than 3 years and up to 6 years of service time qualifies for arbitration if the owner declines to release the player, offer a contract extension, or to renew the player at the Major League Minimum Salary. If the owner chooses arbitration the player will be renewed at the salary established for his SOMO card price for the following season. The owner must decline to offer a contract extension prior to the release of the SOM card set for the upcoming season or the player will be automatically renewed for one year at their qualified major league minimum salary as determined in Sections 9.05 and 9.06 above.

to

ARBITRATION: A player with an expiring contract who has more than 3 years and up to 6 years of service time qualifies for arbitration if the owner declines to release the player, offer a contract extension, or to renew the player at the Major League Minimum Salary. If the owner chooses arbitration the player will be renewed at the salary established for his SOMO card price for the following season. If the player does not have a SOM card to settle the arbitration decision, the player is awarded the league minimum salary based on years of service (i.e. $2 mil for arb1, $3 mil for arb 2, etc). The owner must decline to offer a contract extension prior to the release of the SOM card set for the upcoming season or the player will be automatically renewed for one year at their qualified major league minimum salary as determined in Sections 9.05 and 9.06 above.

I've taken the liberty of entering YES votes for those who expressed support for this revision. We need two more votes for the revision to pass.

If passed, the rule change will take effect immediately.

sociophil: YES (Proposer)
oldmansmith2: YES (Seconder)
Paul_Long71 --
dharmabums -- YES
paul j kiggins -- YES
srh1200 -- YES
madal -- YES
teamnasty -- YES
chilliards --
baseball cfo --
mykbr1 --
hveed --

Phil

I don't believe that this issue has been resolved?

sociophil wrote:
Can we get one more YES vote on this slight change and put this rule to rest?

BE IT PROPOSED TO REVISE THE ARBITRATION RULE from:

Section 9.10 ARBITRATION: A player with an expiring contract who has more than 3 years and up to 6 years of service time qualifies for arbitration if the owner declines to release the player, offer a contract extension, or to renew the player at the Major League Minimum Salary. If the owner chooses arbitration the player will be renewed at the salary established for his SOMO card price for the following season. The owner must decline to offer a contract extension prior to the release of the SOM card set for the upcoming season or the player will be automatically renewed for one year at their qualified major league minimum salary as determined in Sections 9.05 and 9.06 above.

to

ARBITRATION: A player with an expiring contract who has more than 3 years and up to 6 years of service time qualifies for arbitration if the owner declines to release the player, offer a contract extension, or to renew the player at the Major League Minimum Salary. If the owner chooses arbitration the player will be renewed at the salary established for his SOMO card price for the following season. If the player does not have a SOM card to settle the arbitration decision, the player is awarded the league minimum salary based on years of service (i.e. $2 mil for arb1, $3 mil for arb 2, etc). The owner must decline to offer a contract extension prior to the release of the SOM card set for the upcoming season or the player will be automatically renewed for one year at their qualified major league minimum salary as determined in Sections 9.05 and 9.06 above.

I've taken the liberty of entering YES votes for those who expressed support for this revision. We need two more votes for the revision to pass.

If passed, the rule change will take effect immediately.

sociophil: YES (Proposer)
oldmansmith2: YES (Seconder)
Paul_Long71 --
dharmabums -- YES
paul j kiggins -- YES
srh1200 -- YES
madal -- YES
teamnasty -- YES
chilliards --
baseball cfo --
mykbr1 -- YES, to the phrase in red.
hveed --

I have 2 questions about the bidding process.
1. Can one team win all 3 players up for bid?
2. Is there any limit on bids that can be made during the 24 hour bidding period?

1. Can one team win all 3 players up for bid?

Yes, if you can afford it. You cannot place bids that would commit more than your available salary cap if you should win all the bids.

2. Is there any limit on bids that can be made during the 24 hour bidding period?

No. The 24 hour period is not the bidding period. The bidding EXPIRES if there are no new bids for 24 hours. The bidding for a player may potentially go for days.

We still need to vote on the following proposed rule addition:

ARTICLE IX

Section 14: Salary Cap Violation Rule: If a team exceeds the salary cap as the result of an unfavorable arbitration decision, the player whose arbitration decision caused the team to go over the cap is considered to be banned for the season for violations of league substance abuse policies. If more than one player is involved in the arbitration process that resulted in the salary cap violation, the team must get under the salary cap by identifying as few arbitration players as possible to get back into compliance. Each of those "Balco" players will be considered banned for the season. Banned players will remain on the team roster, but the team will not be permitted to participate in free agent signing periods or the prospect draft until they get back under the salary cap.

For example, Team A has spent $130 million in salary cap space before arbitration with three players up for arbitration this year. In a stroke of bad luck these three players are awarded $10 mil, $6 mil, and $4 mil. The team would be required to suspend the $10 mil player for the season as this would involve the suspension of the fewest number of players required to bring the team back into compliance with the salary cap.

sociophil: YES (Proposer)
oldmansmith2 --
Paul_Long71 --
dharmabums --
paul j kiggins --
srh1200 --
madal --
teamnasty --
chilliards --
baseball cfo --
mykbr1 --
hveed --

We still need to vote on the following proposed rule addition:

ARTICLE IX

Section 14: Salary Cap Violation Rule: If a team exceeds the salary cap as the result of an unfavorable arbitration decision, the player whose arbitration decision caused the team to go over the cap is considered to be banned for the season for violations of league substance abuse policies. If more than one player is involved in the arbitration process that resulted in the salary cap violation, the team must get under the salary cap by identifying as few arbitration players as possible to get back into compliance. Each of those "Balco" players will be considered banned for the season. Banned players will remain on the team roster, but the team will not be permitted to participate in free agent signing periods or the prospect draft until they get back under the salary cap.

For example, Team A has spent $130 million in salary cap space before arbitration with three players up for arbitration this year. In a stroke of bad luck these three players are awarded $10 mil, $6 mil, and $4 mil. The team would be required to suspend the $10 mil player for the season as this would involve the suspension of the fewest number of players required to bring the team back into compliance with the salary cap.

sociophil: YES (Proposer)
oldmansmith2 -- yes
Paul_Long71 --
dharmabums --
paul j kiggins --
srh1200 --
madal --
teamnasty --
chilliards --
baseball cfo --
mykbr1 --
hveed --

Posts: 513
Joined: Fri Aug 31, 2012 6:01 am
Re: Moneyball Baseball League Chat
Unread postTue Aug 18, 2020 11:26 pm

We still need to vote on the following proposed rule addition:

ARTICLE IX

Section 14: Salary Cap Violation Rule: If a team exceeds the salary cap as the result of an unfavorable arbitration decision, the player whose arbitration decision caused the team to go over the cap is considered to be banned for the season for violations of league substance abuse policies. If more than one player is involved in the arbitration process that resulted in the salary cap violation, the team must get under the salary cap by identifying as few arbitration players as possible to get back into compliance. Each of those "Balco" players will be considered banned for the season. Banned players will remain on the team roster, but the team will not be permitted to participate in free agent signing periods or the prospect draft until they get back under the salary cap.

For example, Team A has spent $130 million in salary cap space before arbitration with three players up for arbitration this year. In a stroke of bad luck these three players are awarded $10 mil, $6 mil, and $4 mil. The team would be required to suspend the $10 mil player for the season as this would involve the suspension of the fewest number of players required to bring the team back into compliance with the salary cap.

sociophil: YES (Proposer)
oldmansmith2 -- yes
Paul_Long71 --
dharmabums --
paul j kiggins --yes
srh1200 --
madal --
teamnasty --
chilliards --
baseball cfo --
mykbr1 --
hveed --

We still need to vote on the following proposed rule addition:

ARTICLE IX

Section 14: Salary Cap Violation Rule: If a team exceeds the salary cap as the result of an unfavorable arbitration decision, the player whose arbitration decision caused the team to go over the cap is considered to be banned for the season for violations of league substance abuse policies. If more than one player is involved in the arbitration process that resulted in the salary cap violation, the team must get under the salary cap by identifying as few arbitration players as possible to get back into compliance. Each of those "Balco" players will be considered banned for the season. Banned players will remain on the team roster, but the team will not be permitted to participate in free agent signing periods or the prospect draft until they get back under the salary cap.

For example, Team A has spent $130 million in salary cap space before arbitration with three players up for arbitration this year. In a stroke of bad luck these three players are awarded $10 mil, $6 mil, and $4 mil. The team would be required to suspend the $10 mil player for the season as this would involve the suspension of the fewest number of players required to bring the team back into compliance with the salary cap.

sociophil: YES (Proposer)
oldmansmith2 -- yes
Paul_Long71 -- no (I think the team should have the option of banning the 2 lesser salaried players or the higher, not automatically the higher)
dharmabums --
paul j kiggins --yes
srh1200 --
madal --
teamnasty --
chilliards --
baseball cfo --
mykbr1 --
hveed --

I like the idea of the player(s) being banned, I'm just in favor of letting the owner decide how/who to ban to get into compliance with the salary cap.

It’s not a punishment if you get to choose. It’s a choice. Of course my parents always gave me the choice of doing what they wanted or spending the rest of my life in my room.