tcochran wrote:Rule change proposal was posted because language in rules is vague in re: which date applies for the young ballplayers to be under contract.
When the question arose earlier in this current draft, I opined that Since "that year's draft" and "the prospect draft" are both used in that sentence, I infer that it is the start of the FA draft that would be the effective date required for prospect signing.
Under that interpretation, Hunter Greene, for example, is NOT eligible for this year's prospect draft, since he signed after the start of the FA draft -- and even if the rule is changed for the future, that would not change this current draft, since everybody except ironwill1 passed up Greene after the interpretation was posted.
The proposed change would specify the effective signing date as the start of the prospect draft. Voting "no" on the proposal would mean keeping the start of the FA draft as the effective date (at least until something else is proposed).
Terry's got it. We're just trying to clear up the prospect eligibility signed by date cut off.
Yes - no proposals are the best because they're simple. Majority Yes = rule change as voted upon. Otherwise, no change.
If we want slightly different wording, we should vote this one down (or abandon it which amounts to the same thing) and post a new vote with the wording we really want.
This proposal clears up an issue like Hunter Greene. But, it's still problematic. We'll be explaining it every year to new managers and managers who play in multiple leagues at other times of the year.
Did everyone follow that? Someone else may need to explain it better than I. As complex as the rule change seems to make things, leaving it unchanged with the FA draft start date cutoff is worse because it is before the MLB amateur draft signing deadline and Hunter Greene misunderstandings will continue to be possible.