The Brewster

A player acquired on a minor league deal cannot be traded for 30 days in game days and a player acquired on a major league deal can’t be traded for 90 in game days.

Don't like this. Would restrict deals where teams acquire pieces that are to be unloaded for another piece. Or teams taking on salary and then trading him to the next person for $1.

Dington wrote: ↑

Wed May 14, 2025 3:54 pm

Don't like this. Would restrict deals where teams acquire pieces that are to be unloaded for another piece. Or teams taking on salary and then trading him to the next person for $1.

Absolutely would. So get a third team in on that one. I like this idea, with the addition that a player cannot be returned to the original team without review by the Governing Board.

Kinda like it

I don't like it. Makes three-team trades impossible. Feels like regulation for the sake of regulation. What is the objective here?

Boise would have been stuck with Phil Cole lol

I'm saying no. Wouldn't have been able to flip Antonio Baldez immediately after trading for him and prospects. Would make rebuilding more tedious.

BaseClogger wrote: ↑

Wed May 14, 2025 5:56 pm

I don't like it. Makes three-team trades impossible. Feels like regulation for the sake of regulation. What is the objective here?

Boise would have been stuck with Phil Cole lol

No it doesn't. It just has to happen simultaneously.

aaronweiner wrote: ↑

Wed May 14, 2025 6:37 pm

BaseClogger wrote: ↑

Wed May 14, 2025 5:56 pm

I don't like it. Makes three-team trades impossible. Feels like regulation for the sake of regulation. What is the objective here?

Boise would have been stuck with Phil Cole lol

No it doesn't. It just has to happen simultaneously.

Constitution requires it to be separate trades, so that wouldn’t work. Unless the game allowed three way trades now and I don’t think it does.

Due to constraints within OOTP, trades involving more than two GMs must be executed as a series of two-team trades. Each of these must be posted with a header that indicates both that they are part of a multi-team trade and the order in which they should be processed.

Disagree.

Teams' situations change. A team thinks they contend so they make a big deal in June.

Then they fall apart, and you want to prevent them from trying to extract some value from their prior acquisition before the deadline? 90 days is a long time. Its literally more than 12 sims worth.

aaronweiner wrote: ↑

Wed May 14, 2025 6:37 pm

BaseClogger wrote: ↑

Wed May 14, 2025 5:56 pm

I don't like it. Makes three-team trades impossible. Feels like regulation for the sake of regulation. What is the objective here?

Boise would have been stuck with Phil Cole lol

No it doesn't. It just has to happen simultaneously.

I don’t follow.

The Sluggers vote no, mostly because I feel like the rule will be a trapdoor that many will fall ignorantly through. There also doesn't appear to be a compelling reason to implement it, or at least one hasn't been articulated here. Any edge case that the rule is trying to capture can presumably be handled by the GB on an ad hoc basis.

What Louisville said. I’d need to have someone explain why this rule is needed.

I am completely against this.

What I would be for that is currently in the constitution:

Any free agent player that is signed to a major league deal cannot be traded for 90 days.
Any free agent player that is signed to a minor league deal cannot be traded for 30 days.

What I would be up for discussing:

Any player that is selected in the rule 5 draft and is then selected to be returned to their original team, must first be placed on waivers and clear waivers before being returned back to the original team. IF a team claims that player, the same rules apply to that player as if he had been selected in the Rule 5 draft (he must remain on the MLB roster for the duration of the season). I believe this can be done in game. If nobody claims him, then he is released back to the original team with no restrictions and is not on the 40 man roster.

I think this would clean things up a little bit. If that player clears waivers, going back to the original team, it opens the door for trades involving that player, likely further helping the team he was returned to get a better grasp on the current market value for said player.

I like that too Justin but if it requires manual intervention by commish it’s not worth the effort IMO.

BaseClogger wrote: ↑

Thu May 15, 2025 9:40 am

I like that too Justin but if it requires manual intervention by commish it’s not worth the effort IMO.

I don't believe it does? I believe teams can waive players before releasing them back to their original teams if they are rule 5 picks.

niles08 wrote: ↑

Thu May 15, 2025 11:46 am

BaseClogger wrote: ↑

Thu May 15, 2025 9:40 am

I like that too Justin but if it requires manual intervention by commish it’s not worth the effort IMO.

I don't believe it does? I believe teams can waive players before releasing them back to their original teams if they are rule 5 picks.

If it’s not handled by the game automatically it requires monitoring.

Does OOTP allow you to set Rule V to have "no take backs"? I.e. if the player is drafted then they need to stick with the team that drafted them or get released.

I often agree with Dave but this seems to be overkill.

I really like the waiver requirement for returned Rule 5 guys. It removes the drafting team's larger stack of chips when it comes to negotiating for the players rights from the original team. A team won't be able to draft guys with the expectation of trading scraps for a player's rights (he says, fully aware he has ended up doing this in the past and did it twice this most recent Rule 5). It also gives the lower teams a second chance to grab BBA-cusp R5 eligible players on waivers.

As a former (mini-)behemoth GM, I had very little fear of exposing guys to the R5 draft as most often they simply came back anyway. Closing this "loophole" would force behemoths to actually fill their 40-man with these cusp-style guys. I rarely had more than 32-34 guys on my 40-man in SAC. It just wasn't necessary to fill it up.

shoeless.db wrote: ↑

Mon May 19, 2025 1:32 pm

I really like the waiver requirement for returned Rule 5 guys. It removes the drafting team's larger stack of chips when it comes to negotiating for the players rights from the original team. A team won't be able to draft guys with the expectation of trading scraps for a player's rights (he says, fully aware he has ended up doing this in the past and did it twice this most recent Rule 5). It also gives the lower teams a second chance to grab BBA-cusp R5 eligible players on waivers.

As a former (mini-)behemoth GM, I had very little fear of exposing guys to the R5 draft as most often they simply came back anyway. Closing this "loophole" would force behemoths to actually fill their 40-man with these cusp-style guys. I rarely had more than 32-34 guys on my 40-man in SAC. It just wasn't necessary to fill it up.

If the game worked this way it would be perfect. But what you're suggesting means Matt would have to manually remember who was R5 waiver and be sure to out them back properly. It's too much work for too little return IMO.