League Wide ‘Restricted’ List

[Montana]

I’d like to propose that managers who lose their players on account of things outside of baseball….be allowed to drop said players/not protect them, but maintain ownership of their rights.

I don’t think it’s particularly fair that Deckie would have to burn a keeper/roster spot on Wander Franco when it’s debatable if he’ll ever play in the majors again, and if he does it’s def not fair if someone else then gets to scoop him up for free.

So I’d propose that managers of Wander Franco, Trevor Bauer, Julio Urias etc be allowed to post said players to a Restricted List….which means they can drop them, not “keep” them, but retain their rights when they do return.


Thoughts? Arguments for/against?

 

[Iceman]

I'm generally in support of this concept. Real MLB teams don't have to take up an active roster spot when this sort of thing occurs, do they? Yet they still maintain the rights to the player?

The main question is what the criteria would be to qualify for the list. Suspended for a certain minimum amount of time? We've had different tricky scenarios come up in other sports too (for example, Tom Brady "retiring" and then unretiring in football, or Ilya Kovalchuk going back and forth between the NHL and KHL in hockey).

If there aren't clear criteria, could a manager propose it when something like Franco or Bauer's situation happens to his player and the league vote? Or perhaps a panel of the league heads?

 

[Montana]

Yeah we’d need to figure something out there, I was thinking maybe they post the player to this thread, then if they want to pick them back up they need to drop (a) someone they kept the off-season prior (to replace with this “keeper” or (b) give up a keeper slot in the next draft.

that way no one is getting any advantage from it, nor would there be much of a loophole to exploit.

On mlb restricted list or retired, they can go here…

But you’re right, it’s easy to say now when there’s obvious cases like Bauer, Wander, maybe Urias…..but what if it’s less clear cut, and it happens during the offseason. Your panel idea could work. (Axl, Deckie, HP are about as honest as they come, and makes for easy 2-1 or 3-0 majority?)

Still tho. To your point we’d want to see up a certain level of framework so that 95% of the time it’s cut and dry

 

[Montana]

I’m also fine for using this for players given 60+ game suspensions.

 

[Habspatrol]

I agree... not just because I had to drop Bauer... I'd agree no matter who it was.

 

[Montana]

@Deckie007 @axlsalinger @Kellen2000 @Killersweet can’t recall anyone else’s handles, but if you do maybe add a shout out to em.

 

[axlsalinger]

I really don't know what the answer should be here. It makes sense not to force managers to "waste" a roster spot on guys who may/may not return, but at the same time it's giving teams a "free" impact player when maybe there should be consequences for knucklehead players. Certainly not opposed to the idea presented here, we can see what everyone else thinks as well.

Maybe one idea could be that a team still has to protect these players as part of their 20 Protected Players pre-season, but then they can be eligible for the IR in-season? It is difficult because I think this type of rule makes more sense for a Bauer than Wander Franco, because a Bauer was more likely to be back in a year or two, whereas nobody has any idea with Wander.

(I was going to suggest that maybe teams could be forced to use a Minors spot on these guys during the season, but it's probably a bad idea to put Franco in the minors. Too soon?)

 

[Deckie007]

I really don't know what the answer should be here. It makes sense not to force managers to "waste" a roster spot on guys who may/may not return, but at the same time it's giving teams a "free" impact player when maybe there should be consequences for knucklehead players. Certainly not opposed to the idea presented here, we can see what everyone else thinks as well.

Maybe one idea could be that a team still has to protect these players as part of their 20 Protected Players pre-season, but then they can be eligible for the IR in-season? It is difficult because I think this type of rule makes more sense for a Bauer than Wander Franco, because a Bauer was more likely to be back in a year or two, whereas nobody has any idea with Wander.

(I was going to suggest that maybe teams could be forced to use a Minors spot on these guys during the season, but it's probably a bad idea to put Franco in the minors. Too soon?)

I mean, there was no way for anyone to know this would happen with Wander. Hell I had the same thing happen with Osuna too and I made not a peep. I'm not sure why we need to punish a manager for owning a "knucklehead"?

Obviously I have skin in the game for Wander, but like I already lost a player for an indeterminate amount of time that could have potentially been the best at his (very valuable) position for a while. I suppose we can vote on it. Something like:

A - No provision, must use a protected spot on player as usual.
B - No protected spot used but needs to be on active roster.
C - No protected spot used can be put on IR

Obviously I think option C is the fairest. I think it's a little bit of a gray area with free agents, but I think as long as the manager owned the player before he was released (like Bauer), then I'm comfortable letting the manager put him on the list.

 

[Montana]

Yeah that’s kinda my whole point behind the idea is that we basically have little to no idea who might be the next offender, and majority of the time it’s zero fault of the manager (in so far as they took a “risk” on a questionable character guy….cause like Julio Urias, Wander? I’d never ever have guessed…..and roids? Tatis wouldn’t have been someone I’d have picked to get busted).

….but even most importantly, no one else should get to profit by picking this player up for free, if/when they do return.





Also, I’ll put this out there since the rule was my idea…..I’ll never use it.

 

[Montana]

C - No protected spot used can be put on IR

Obviously I think option C is the fairest. I think it's a little bit of a gray area with free agents, but I think as long as the manager owned the player before he was released (like Bauer), then I'm comfortable letting the manager put him on the list.

gets my vote.

 

[UWHabs]

It's a tough call... To me, at the very least, anyone in this case should maybe not be eligible to simply be claimed. So let's say we don't do this, and you drop Franco, if he gets cleared next June, I think nobody should be able to simply claim them on waivers, and should have to return the next draft. It's a little easier to justify that for Bauer, who was in a foreign league, and so presumably wouldn't really be eligible for the league despite his absence.

For the other 2 (or steroid guys, or anyone else we would consider in), it would be a little trickier if they don't actually like get released and sign away somewhere else in the meantime, since in theory they could just return and start playing the next day. Like, it sucks if your guy gets booted due to that, but at the same time, arguably for fantasy isn't not like that much different than someone who gets a random freak injury, sort of? But that also sounds like a pretty evil thing to do to people, force you to make a call. Although I don't necessarily think you should just get them back for virtually free if like Franco somehow is out of the league for 5 years, and then magically comes back.

But maybe I would say that you get like one year grace with them? So you can cut Urias or Franco, nobody can draft or claim them until they get cleared by MLB, and if they come back sometime next season, maybe you can get them back but like give up your first round pick the next season, or something like that? But I think if they miss all of next season and still aren't cleared, I don't think you should keep their rights forever. Since then you start to get into some "why do you get to keep these creeps and a-holes for free, but I don't get free matching rights on XXXX who signed in Korea for 2 years and comes back crazier than before." Or like if someone decided not to use a keeper on Liam Hendriks when you found out his cancer diagnosis, etc...

 

[Montana]

It's a tough call... To me, at the very least, anyone in this case should maybe not be eligible to simply be claimed. So let's say we don't do this, and you drop Franco, if he gets cleared next June, I think nobody should be able to simply claim them on waivers, and should have to return the next draft. It's a little easier to justify that for Bauer, who was in a foreign league, and so presumably wouldn't really be eligible for the league despite his absence.

he is actually. Nothing in our rules about owning anyone in a foreign league, so long as they’d been signed to a MLB contract before. And arent

For the other 2 (or steroid guys, or anyone else we would consider in), it would be a little trickier if they don't actually like get released and sign away somewhere else in the meantime, since in theory they could just return and start playing the next day.

Yeah, this is the one speed bump I ran into as well.

It’s why I mentioned the drop one keeper from the prior draft, or having sacrifice an extra keeper slot (above that players slot) the next season. So that no freebie keeper was allowed…..and therefor no added benefit to not having had to keep the suspended player, other than effectively carrying a DL replacement effectively, through the off-season. So we help to cover for your loss, make it slightly less painful, but prevent anyone benefiting from it.


Or something similar….cause that is the one loophole to the idea, as you point out.

Like, it sucks if your guy gets booted due to that, but at the same time, arguably for fantasy isn't not like that much different than someone who gets a random freak injury, sort of?

Which allows folks to use DL and pick up a replacement. Which effectively this would be doing.

But that also sounds like a pretty evil thing to do to people, force you to make a call. Although I don't necessarily think you should just get them back for virtually free if like Franco somehow is out of the league for 5 years, and then magically comes back.

I hear ya, but why should someone else magically get them though?….any argument for someone else getting them is a worse argument imo than the person who invested in them (either via draft, trade, holding through the minors to them becoming fantasy worthy, etc)…..getting them back.

someone picking them up off waivers or via a draft, is getting them for effectively free (or dirt cheap, relatively, to what Deckie invested in Wander, for instance (Pick + time + turning down monster offers for him over the years, already paying the penalty of losing his production out of nowhere, etc)

But maybe I would say that you get like one year grace with them? So you can cut Urias or Franco, nobody can draft or claim them until they get cleared by MLB, and if they come back sometime next season, maybe you can get them back but like give up your first round pick the next season, or something like that? But I think if they miss all of next season and still aren't cleared, I don't think you should keep their rights forever. Since then you start to get into some "why do you get to keep these creeps and a-holes for free, but I don't get free matching rights on XXXX who signed in Korea for 2 years and comes back crazier than before." Or like if someone decided not to use a keeper on Liam Hendriks when you found out his cancer diagnosis, etc...

Id have to vote against this personally…I just don’t see any reason to allow one year, but not more. Still the same manager who got screwed initially, and I can’t talk myself into someone else being able to then benefit from that, other than the original owner.

again using the Franco example….I can’t be convinced anyone but Deckie could deserve to own him 2-3 years from now…..and it be a “fair” outcome, even if they used #1 overall FYPD pick on him.

/2 cents.

 

[Montana]

Also worth remembering, the “help” we’re giving them is only a “21st keeper” type player….the first guy they’d otherwise cut, gets to make the team.

….and then obviously get the star back, and don’t burn a bench spot all year, but still relatively to losing the star in the first place, it’s a pittance.


otherwise Deckie loses Wander production, effectively only has 19 keeper slots being forced to use one on him, and is also then down a bench spot for as long as he can stomach holding him (which given his age, and upside, is probably a long ass time)

That’s a real kick in the teeth imo, above and beyond how shit it is losing him.

 

[UWHabs]

Yeah, that's where it's awkward. On the one hand it's sort of like getting an extra keeper. But at the same time, it's not? And like sort of a compensation for basically losing them.

I go back and forth what seems fair. I do agree at least a short term pause makes sense. Certainly don't want to force drop him before the draft only for like 2 weeks later getting a whole "oops yeah this was just false allegations". Or vice versa have to keep him on the like 1% chance they get cleared, and then the obvious happens later. That makes a lot of sense, especially as long as the MLB decision isn't final, i can definitely get behind that. But if MLB comes out in December and says "3 year ban", does that mean his rights are kept until he is reinstated, or does them having the ban mean he goes back to being any other player and you just gotta decide if the roster spot is worth it?

 

[Montana]

But if MLB comes out in December and says "3 year ban", does that mean his rights are kept until he is reinstated, or does them having the ban mean he goes back to being any other player and you just gotta decide if the roster spot is worth it?

Honestly, I’d be perfectly fine with this….I’ll just keep using the Wander Franco example, (as gross as his specific instance is, but he’s the best asset we’ve seen this happen to)….three years from now he’s only 25-26? Why should Iceman say (let’s be honest, hes the safest guess to have the 1st rounder to take him, )….get him after Deckie saw his best asset he’d owned 6+ years, mainly as a prospect, used a 2nd to draft….go up in smoke just as his career kicked off.

I can just never square it where someone else deserves a crack at them, over their original manager.

 

[Montana]

maybe to be able to use it, you at minimum have to have used a keeper slot (minors or reg) on them the prior off-season, a draft pick to acquire, or dealt for them.

free agents picked up in season aren’t eligible? (Year one, but maybe year two they could if you use a keeper to hold them?)

 

[axlsalinger]

I agree that we should definitely keep Franco in mind when deciding what to do, it's just completely shitty and unfair for Deckie.

It doesn't look great right now for Julio Urias, but let's say that there are extenuating circumstances in his favour and he ends up getting a 30-game suspension announced after our protected list deadline. Would be unfair for that team to get 20 protected keepers and then get to add Urias as well. I guess it's slightly possible this could happen for Wander as well.

The idea of having some sort of restricted list seems like a good idea, though.

 

[UWHabs]

Honestly, I’d be perfectly fine with this….I’ll just keep using the Wander Franco example, (as gross as his specific instance is, but he’s the best asset we’ve seen this happen to)….three years from now he’s only 25-26? Why should Iceman say (let’s be honest, hes the safest guess to have the 1st rounder to take him, )….get him after Deckie saw his best asset he’d owned 6+ years, mainly as a prospect, used a 2nd to draft….go up in smoke just as his career kicked off.

I can just never square it where someone else deserves a crack at them, over their original manager.

The argument I guess is that we don't have unlimited keepers. Obviously if Deckie wanted to waste a keeper spot on him for years, nobody else gets him. Nobody's arguing there. And for sure if Fantrax didn't consider him injured eligible, doing what we need to make sure he doesn't waste a bench spot during season obviously makes sense.

And I guess you might come out and have MLB say "banned for life", and then like a year later be "well, we poked a little more and he can come back next Tuesday." Which granted would be a dick move to let someone else claim him and not give Deckie the first crack.

But I guess the question, as Axl listed, is what's fair to balance it out. If you hide Franco or Urias on this restricted list, and they somehow get cleared and are back early season, I don't think it's fair to get them back for free, since now you get an extra keeper. But yeah, maybe as simple as "cut a keeper from last year", or simpler if they reinstated in the offseason, now they just have to go towards your next keeper list? So Bauer only likely to return after the season is done, he just goes back to the last team who now needs to decide on a keeper slot for him?

It's still kind of weird if like Urias goes and pitches for 5 years in the Mexican League, and then comes back. Like if Roberto Osuna just woke up and was like "oh year I just signed back in MLB".

And then still the whole "who all counts". Once you get into suspensions and retirements, you start adding in a lot of people. Like if Votto "retires", but then come July is like "nah, I'm bored", is that done the same?

 

[Habspatrol]

If someone had used a keeper slot on Votto, then he retires and the manager drops him, then comes back... that owner should have first crack. I see no reason not to allow it.

 

[Montana]

But yeah, maybe as simple as "cut a keeper from last year",

I think this works particularly well because if you tried to game the system and loaded up with 20 studs plus Wander, you’d now have to pay a real price cutting one of them to get him back.

You’d also have to be wary of the fact you’d always want one of your 20 keepers to remain on your team that is okay to drop for him….so you’re not stuck where you only have 11 studs from the off-season remaining, and it would cost you Bryce Harper
to drop for him or something.

or simpler if they reinstated in the offseason, now they just have to go towards your next keeper list?

100%

So Bauer only likely to return after the season is done, he just goes back to the last team who now needs to decide on a keeper slot for him?

if we know he’s coming back, or they’re comfortable believing he will be, yes.

otherwise one of their other 20 keepers is dropped when he signs somewhere at the all star break say.

It's still kind of weird if like Urias goes and pitches for 5 years in the Mexican League, and then comes back. Like if Roberto Osuna just woke up and was like "oh year I just signed back in MLB".

agreed that feels weird…..but it feels weirder thinking you or me could get Urias in that situation before Dumpster Fire, who just traded significant assets to get him weeks before losing him.

And then still the whole "who all counts". Once you get into suspensions and retirements, you start adding in a lot of people. Like if Votto "retires", but then come July is like "nah, I'm bored", is that done the same?

I do like that committee idea one of you had for scenarios that we might not currently be thinking of, where 3 of our managers can vote on it, if there’s any debate over it being used for player X.

In your instance here with Votto tho, that person would have to drop someone they had deemed worthy of keeping in the off-season, who now has to be dropped from old man Votto before he even plays a game.

So while not ideal, it’s also a fairly small benefit.