• Moderators, please send me a PM if you are unable to access mod permissions. Thanks, Habsy.

League Wide ‘Restricted’ List

Yeah, we need to come up with an official rule. Maybe something as simple as we create a "Review Team" of maybe 5 managers to look at any situation that comes up on a one-by-one basis.

- If a player goes on the "Commissioner's List", his rights are owned by the team without having to use a keeper spot on it. If that player returns, they must drop one of the 20 players they kept that year to add him. Maybe we set a time limit (ie. players can only remain on the list for max 3 years or something?)

I think it's fairly clear we should have a rule that reflects what happened with Wander as that should be (I hope!) a fairly rare occurrence. Something that could apply to Trevor Bauer and Julio Urias types as well, just a rule that makes sense. And of course would need to be approved by the Review Team.

Someone mentioned Votto retiring earlier, similar thing happened with Bergeron in hockey. To me that just seems like a tough decision for a manager, I'm not sure a player retiring or unretiring necessarily fits this criteria, but maybe that point is still open to a little further discussion. The above examples are hard to navigate because even if the player and team agree, there are still legal issues to overcome, and Manfred could also block or suspend the player. Whereas a guy retiring or not is up to him and the team, without those extenuating circumstances.
 
I'd be fine with the "Proposal & Review" system. If I guy gets popped for steroids or arrested or retires in a wishy-washy way or whatever, the owner posts him here to propose putting him on an exemption list so his rights are retained until the situation gets sorted out and the player (hopefully) returns.

I have no problem trusting a committee of OG league guys to make that decision. An alternative to that would be to allow 10 days for anyone in the league the option to vote on that player going on the list. Then we don't have to chase down stragglers if they're not paying attention or don't want to vote, but it would allow everyone a say instead of putting it all on a small committee.

I'm less into making the owner drop one of his 20 keepers from that original year to re-add the player. I'll go along with it if that's what people want, but I see issues with that. It's still penalizing the owner for something pretty far out of his control. Can't we just let him add the player back and make sure his current roster is compliant...cut anyone at all if he's at the roster limit?

If not, if someone like Bauer or Franco comes back years later and the owner has 11 of 20 keepers from that original year left on his roster (the fringe guys having been traded, cut, or retired by this point), then he has to cut a stud to get Bauer or Franco back? That's shitty.
 
Yeah I think a review team like scenario is pretty ideal…and I echo what Iceman said, I’d honestly trust any of the OG’s to singularly make that call, but throw 3-5 of em together just so it can be discussed/debated or what have you and I’m even more confident in it.
 
Iceman said:
I'm less into making the owner drop one of his 20 keepers from that original year to re-add the player. I'll go along with it if that's what people want, but I see issues with that. It's still penalizing the owner for something pretty far out of his control. Can't we just let him add the player back and make sure his current roster is compliant...cut anyone at all if he's at the roster limit?
Click to expand...
[/QUOTE]


issue here is someone could potentially be getting a free keeper out of it and improving because of a players wrong doing.

Especially since we have no guarantees of the timing of things…..a 1-1 swap at least means (a) he has to be good enough to overtake one of his 20, and (b) the only “advantage” gained from it is going from whoever was the 20th keeper to the commish list player. (And any value 20th provided until then).

To me it just seems to make it a clean, easy solution.


Iceman said:
If not, if someone like Bauer or Franco comes back years later and the owner has 11 of 20 keepers from that original year left on his roster (the fringe guys having been traded, cut, or retired by this point), then he has to cut a stud to get Bauer or Franco back? That's shitty.
Click to expand...

Agreed, could also allow someone to simply burn a future 2nd round pick say? Something one would happily do if the player is good enough, but wouldn’t do as a loophole workaround or anything.
 
Montana said:
Agreed, could also allow someone to simply burn a future 2nd round pick say? Something one would happily do if the player is good enough, but wouldn’t do as a loophole workaround or anything.
Click to expand...


I will go along with whatever, but that sounds like a pretty reasonable price as an option.
 
I guess we could quickly decide what to do with the 3 guys that come to mind, Wander, Bauer, Urias. Bauer is tough because he's already missed 2 full seasons, and is currently cleared but unsigned in MLB, and unowned in our league. Not sure he warrants being on the commish list. Wander definitely should be, and Urias is a bit of a grey area but probably should be for this year.
 
I’d be fine grandfathering Bauer to whoever owned him, (so long as it wasn’t me)…

Bauer & Urias feel pretty similar atm, imo.
 
As we had in the discussion before, any option is going to feel right and wrong, just because they are pretty unique scenarios. And even if we had this before for Bauer, he's technically cleared to return now, so like at some level it feels like he should protected or not right now. But at the same time obviously he's still on the outs, even if legally he can play, so it just feels like being a slight asshole to force a decision now.

But all in all, I think this should only be used in special cases like this, Bauer, Urias, and Franco, and I think giving owners either the option to drop someone from their protected list or forfeit a future 2nd, to bring them back, is ok. I don't think stretching to other retired or nearly retired players, or to other injury situations, or if the suspension is definite. Like if MLB comes out tomorrow and slaps a 162 game suspension on Tatis, that isn't that far off from losing a guy to TJ or from stepping on a sprinkler for the season.
 
yeah, i was thinking earlier about a steroid suspension. Seems like that should definitely require the use of a keeper, we have a known timeframe and it's almost certain the player returns to his team when it's over. The situation for these other guys is a lot murkier and they may never return.
 
Yeah, and actual suspension is one thing... But it's the indefinite situations that I think it makes sense.
 
This is now an official rule.

Commissioners List

5-Manager Review Team will be created to assess whether a player is eligible for the Commissioners List. This is a list of players who retain keeper status for the team that owned their rights when they stopped playing in MLB due to extenuating circumstances. The team does not need to use one of their 20 keeper spots or 30 minors spots to retain their rights.

There is no time limit to be on the list, but the Review Team will review the list each year and retain the right to add or remove a player at any time by majority vote.

If the player returns during their 1st season on the list, the team must drop one of their 20 Protected Players in order to return them to active status. After the first year, the team can use one of their protected players, or a 2nd Round Draft Pick (the next one they own at that time). The Review Team has the right to require the manager in question to use a protected player only, if they deem it to be appropriate.

The team that previously owned the players rights does have the right to decline having the player return to their team, in which case they would not have to drop a protected player or pick, and the MLB player in question would be eligible for league-wide free agency after going through waivers.

Players who have retired or been suspended for performance-enhancing drugs or any other on or off-field issue with a known return date are generally understood to be ineligible for the Commissioners List, though the Review Team does retain the right to review and approve or deny any player from being added to or removed from the list at any time for any reason.

Initial Players On The List:

- Wander Franco
- Julio Urias
- Trevor Bauer
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
I think this is great, Axl. Well thought out, clearly worded, seems fair to me and to anyone affected by these unexpected issues.

One little tiny question / suggestion... when "the MLB player in question would be eligible for league-wide free agency" if an owner declines to take him back, could we put that player on waivers for a short period instead of first come, first served for whoever sees the announcement first?
 
So, I'm not 100% sure how this list works... but I assume, since Trevor Bauer still has not returned to MLB, I don't have to keep him on my roster in order to retain him?
 
Deckie007 said:
We didn't seem to establish that in the rule, but it would make sense. Still kinda penalizing the manager if they have to play a spot short.
Click to expand...
Yeah that's what I was thinking. It seems to only make sense... That's why they are on the restricted list is because they are not playing.
 
In Spring Training each player was IR-eligible in Fantrax so it seemed like it wasn't an issue, but I guess we can add this to the rule:

1. When possible, players on the Restricted List should be kept on the IR in Fantrax by the team that owns them.
2. However, if the player is not IR-eligible, the player can be dropped into the Fantrax FA player pool, and the team will continue to own their rights indefinitely, or until declared ineligible for the Restricted List by the Rules Committee.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top