EC DISCUSSION: September Free Agent Signings

[Copperfields]

At this point ALL free agents who are acquired after Aug. 31 receive B contracts. Dave Holian suggested that we should limit the B contract assignment only to players who are called up to the majors on Sept 1 and after, so if you FAAB a guy who'd been in the Free Agent Pool since July, he'd get a D contract instead of a B.

LINK TO ORIGINAL DISCUSSION
cfcl.proboards19.com/index.cgi?board=general&action=display&thread=1127310614

[Nick's Picts (archived)]

No strong feelings either way. I suppose I'd vote for keeping the rule the same because it is simpler and one could have taken the flier a week earlier if one were so inclined.

OTOH, yell loud enough and I'll likely change my vote.

[MGrage]

I AGREE WITH NICK. BUT I'M YELLING JUST TO MAKE HIM CHANGE HIS VOTE

[Copperfields]

I'm pretty ambivalent toward this one as well.

It's true, as Nick pointed out, that one could have taken a flier a week earlier, but that's assuming the player's being acquired on the first Friday in Sept. Under the proposed rule, you could take a flier on someone at the end of September as well -- someone who may have toiled in anonimity prior to Sept.1, but who comes to the forefront during the first few weeks of the month. It might give non-contending teams a reason to pay attention during the last month -- another chance to pick up a possible sleeper.

Paul Maholm is an example of a guy who was available prior to Sept 1, but wasn't acquired until after that date. And while I didn't sign Willy Aybar (who may have saved my butt) until the middle of the month when he was starting everyday, I'm pretty sure he was out there before Sept 1.

I could go either way, but am inclined to go along with Nick (although it's not like making this switch would make things terribly complicated -- I'd just save a copy of the free agent listing on Aug. 31 -- anyone who's on it would get a D contract if they're later acquired).

David

[Demreb]

Looks like my EC compatriots have beaten me to the punch. I'll try to catch up.

On September Free Agents I can see the logic of The Professor's suggestion. The only factor that would want me to make the change is that it could encourage lower placed teams (like Dem Rebels) to pay attention ALL YEAR and pick up some bargains.

In reality, I don't think much will change. Teams will be interested or not for many reasons and I don't think the prospect of picking up a Sept Free Agent but having it be a B contract has prevented teams from picking up someone.

I'm inclined to side with Nick, David and Matt G. on this one, but could be swayed easily.

[Nick's Picts (archived)]

Okay, I see your point, David. Now if only you'd say it a little louder. Matt has confused me so much I may just abstain.

[Copperfields]

It seems no one feels strongly enough about this to really make a case for it. I'll leave this open for a while longer ... hopefully others will chime in.

[Copperfields]

I think this rule suggestion wins the 2006 Apathy Award... no one seems interested enough to even express lukewarm support for it, and the reasoning against it is equally bland.

Would I be wrong to say that the general feeling among the EC is to leave the rule as-is -- that ALL September free agent signees would receive B (now possibly S) contracts, regardless of when they entered the Free Agent Pool?

[Demreb]

Agreed, we implement Nick's idea of "S" contracts and they apply to anyone acquired in September.

[stones]

Its not that I am apathic, I just don't think I care either way. I was going to give it some thought but I didn't get around to it.

S contracts sounds like a plan to me, but I guess I can go either way.

Gotta run, I have to get inspired about something.

[Copperfields]

EC Recommendation: All players signed as Free Agents on Sept. 1 or after should continue to receive contracts through the end of the current season only, regardless of when they first appeared in the Free Agent Pool.