We are still in our first year's drafts

Right? And I may be mistaken, but don't trades have to be even in both player and draft picks during the initial SSD drafts?

I know there's a question about DL spots, which I already voted on, but this is actually my concern about the current trade.

Well, the rule is listed like this:

"For Year 1 you are allowed to trade any type of draft picks as long as you receive the same amount of picks or players you gave."

So, the interpretation of the rule for the trade is that it's 2 for 2.

Two players, for a player and a pick.

The rule, unfortunately, isn't specific as to major/minor league players or picks.

If need be, we can ALSO vote on this trade and rule to set a precedent for the rest of these year 1 pre-season goings on. (Meaning: whether trades have to be MLB player for MLB player and/or minor league pick for minor league pick -- this is how most appear to have interpreted the rule up until this point, which isn't necessarily RIGHT or WRONG, as the trade in question proves.)

We as commissioners are listening, and we won't proceed with the draft until ALL concerns are addressed.

well, seeing as how we have locked MLB rosters, with absolutely zero downward movement towards our farm teams, and no DL designation (which won't come until opening week) this trade puts Salt over the roster limit.

While I understand how it could be interpreted 2 for 2, I hope you can also understand how it could also be interpreted (more accurately i think) as 2 MLB for 1MLB and 1MiLB. Which as of this instant would put one team over the roster limit.

Remember, there is no DL until the season starts, and there is certainly NOT one now since we haven't had a previous season. And you can't send players back to the minors.

Firstly, I agree with everything peg is saying.


Secondly,even though I know the vote has been cast, we need to have options.

so either TMS needs to drop a player before we do anything or the trade needs to be nullified.

I like Jays idea. Nullify the trade. Salt pick Rasmus. Then when the league page is set up in March do the deal. Shit, leave the transaction post, just put an asterisk *to be completed in Marcch.

max_murder wrote:so either TMS needs to drop a player before we do anything or the trade needs to be nullified.

I like Jays idea. Nullify the trade. Salt pick Rasmus. Then when the league page is set up in March do the deal. Shit, leave the transaction post, just put an asterisk *to be completed in Marcch.

Thats a great idea.

I know people are annoyed that we keep changing things around....but theres no possible way that an initial constitution for a league like this be perfect the first time around. Theres gonna be loose-ends, discrepancies, rules that people dont like, and things that need to be changed. Im not trying to kiss ass...but i fully expected issues like this. (especially with how vague the initial constitution was under Louie)

Vriez wrote:

I know people are annoyed that we keep changing things around....but theres no possible way that an initial constitution for a league like this be perfect the first time around. Theres gonna be loose-ends, discrepancies, rules that people dont like, and things that need to be changed. Im not trying to kiss ass...but i fully expected issues like this. (especially with how vague the initial constitution was under Louie)

Understood here. I think we're doing a good job at coming up with solutions so far.

Vriez wrote:

max_murder wrote:so either TMS needs to drop a player before we do anything or the trade needs to be nullified.

I like Jays idea. Nullify the trade. Salt pick Rasmus. Then when the league page is set up in March do the deal. Shit, leave the transaction post, just put an asterisk *to be completed in Marcch.

Thats a great idea.

I know people are annoyed that we keep changing things around....but theres no possible way that an initial constitution for a league like this be perfect the first time around. Theres gonna be loose-ends, discrepancies, rules that people dont like, and things that need to be changed. Im not trying to kiss ass...but i fully expected issues like this. (especially with how vague the initial constitution was under Louie)

I concur here. That would be a great idea.

djpegleg wrote:well, seeing as how we have locked MLB rosters, with absolutely zero downward movement towards our farm teams, and no DL designation (which won't come until opening week) this trade puts Salt over the roster limit.

While I understand how it could be interpreted 2 for 2, I hope you can also understand how it could also be interpreted (more accurately i think) as 2 MLB for 1MLB and 1MiLB. Which as of this instant would put one team over the roster limit.

Remember, there is no DL until the season starts, and there is certainly NOT one now since we haven't had a previous season. And you can't send players back to the minors.

I absolutely understand.