DFA instead of 48 hour grace period

[Reds GM (Pat H.)]

Feb 1, 2010 20:54:57 GMT -8 Reds GM (Pat H.) said:

I would like to replace the 48 hour grace period for the 50 man roster limit. Instead have a strict 50 man limit. When a roster is at the max of 50 players, for every player that is added to the roster a player must be released or designated for assignment. Once a player is DFA, you have 7 days to trade him. After 7 days he must be released. You would have a DFA post so everyone could see it.

We could even have a variation where you could add a player back to your roster if a roster spot opened up. But a player could only be DFA'd one time and could never be put on your DFA list again.

Another idea would include salary and the salary cap in the DFA option also. If you signed someone and it would put you over the cap; you could put someone on the DFA list to get half the DFA'd players salary off the book. If you traded the DFA'd player then the rest of the salary would come off your book.

Feb 3, 2010 5:44:53 GMT -8 @mikekottka said:

this sounds like a good idea, and it sticks close with the principal of realistic mgmt. Way to think outside the box Pat. I second the idea.
Think you would need a penalty for players not being traded after the 7 day period by charging the players full salary until the end of the year to still discourage people from going over the roster max.
There has to be some kind of risk to people trying to DFA players with large salaries, otherwise managers can get big salaries off the books without having to waive the player. There would be an increased risk to DFA large salary players and would further discourage going over the roster or salary cap, sticking with the theme of the league.
So far, I have been cutting players in anticipation of free agent pickups, so this would be a welcome solution to having to give up my prospects hoping to replace them with free agents from a mercenary bidding process.

The Brewers

I thought I would bring this up again. Please give feed back and ideas.

There would not be a grace period for exceeding the 50 man limit or the cap.

I think it could be part of the released players thread. The players would be DFA'd first. Then for 7 days (or whatever amount of time maybe 14 days) half of the players salary is off your books and if you can trade the player before the time is up, you get the other half off your books. If no trade is completed then the player is released and you still owe half the salary per the rules.

Everyone would know where they are against the cap at all times.

Please give feed back and ideas.

[Former Angels GM (Mike C.)]

its a great idea the only problem is the time frame it takes for trades to be made, then to go throught the veto process, then to be reworked if vetoed....also, once again, it would be another rule that would work in the veterans advantage to not allow new teams to stock up on prospects that would be available the following year out of fear of going over the roster limits in their first season. Yes, this rule idea is created because of the veto committee, FA bid process, the waiver process and the no trade of FA's for X amount of time and this isn't the only rule change that will come about with the current rules and processes in place.

If a trade is effective immediately, FA's are available immediately, you can trade anyone you have on your roster immediately. This idea works.

I know I have tried to make trades before FA's are announced but you don't know how many spots you need til they are announced. So you can't prepare how many trades/releases you need to do. If you do make trades, then you have to work a trade, at least a few days to a week, then it has to go through the trade veto process, which could take 5 days to 10 days after FA's are even announced, if it has to be reworked per the veto.

In the major leagues there is no roster limit on minor leaguers. If this league used, only major league players, then yes, rosters should be kept at a max amount. Its apples to oranges.

=Rules not like actual MLB in the league currently
-can't trade a player immediately after signing him as a FA
-veto committee
-forget it, just proving a point no need to kill the horse to death

point being, please nobody use the "They do it in the Major Leagues" argument, not a reasonable reason as applied to current rules of PB.

[Nationals GM (Preston - Old)]

I like the idea to be honest, but it comes down to finding a way to seamlessly integrate it. Wouldn't designating players for assignment still function the same as releasing, kind of, in that teams still need to make a move within a certain amount of time after signing players that put them over the roster limit?

[Former Angels GM (Mike C.)]

the rule is great, but two issues

-if a trade is treated as "approved", then vetoed, after any trade veto there should be another 48 hr clock for just the players involved in the trade.

-Rules are not currently enforced on many other "time" constraints currently in the rules, why would this be any different?