|
Post by Brian Shepard on Jan 8, 2014 16:13:02 GMT
I have had a few questions from the Dodgers and White Sox owners about A Guerrero and J Abreu.
Here is the language I used for roster lock-in date: "I think it would be best if we work with the idea that a player on a team's roster at the end of the season will still be there."
Both of these players signed with their respective teams after their teams' seasons were over, but before the World Series was over. My thought is that they should be free agents, but I am willing to listen to other opinions.
In fairness, I will go with a majority rules opinion, and I think the White Sox and Dodgers owners should abstain.
Please share your thoughts. Thanks!
Brian
|
|
|
Post by sethbias on Jan 8, 2014 16:18:08 GMT
I have no problem with either one. But I would lean toward letting the White Sox and Dodgers have them. I don't think the season is over until there's no more baseball.
|
|
timpo
Junior Member
Posts: 55
|
Post by timpo on Jan 8, 2014 16:45:37 GMT
I think they should belong to the Dodgers and White Sox respectively. Free agency doesn't start until after completion of the World Series so I think we should follow along those lines.
|
|
|
Post by Jeff Manning on Jan 8, 2014 16:55:48 GMT
I'm fine either way. I agree that since real free agency doesn't start until after the World Series that they would be considered members of their respective squads since they were signed prior the world series ending.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 8, 2014 18:35:28 GMT
im good with letting them have them if baseball is still happening when the team acquired then then they should be on that team.
|
|
|
Post by clayhounds on Jan 9, 2014 0:10:59 GMT
Leave them with their teams, (White Sox and Dodgers).
|
|
|
Post by Brian Shepard on Jan 11, 2014 15:54:01 GMT
OK, next question. It looks like the consensus is to allow these two players to be a part of the organizations that signed them. The dilemma is that they had no 2013 salary. Since this is a unique circumstance, should their salary this year be their 2014 salary? I was asked if it should be $.5, but this is a salary we use for rookies, not FA. If we allow them to be signed as FA to their teams, not sure using rookie salaries is fair. Help! Please state your thoughts.
|
|
|
Post by HunterDenson on Jan 11, 2014 16:17:03 GMT
I'm fine with using the 2014 salaries
|
|
timpo
Junior Member
Posts: 55
|
Post by timpo on Jan 11, 2014 17:09:37 GMT
Agree--using 2014 salaries would be the fairest thing to do.
|
|
|
Post by clayhounds on Jan 11, 2014 20:08:01 GMT
I think it should be $0.5 just as a rookie who is brought up from minors unless they have more than the 50 IP or 150 AB because they are still rookies until they reach those numbers. Just my opinion.
|
|
|
Post by sethbias on Jan 11, 2014 20:14:01 GMT
Don't have an opinion either way, so whatever the consensus is works for me.
|
|
|
Post by Jeff Manning on Jan 11, 2014 20:31:32 GMT
I think it should be $0.5 just as a rookie who is brought up from minors unless they have more than the 50 IP or 150 AB because they are still rookies until they reach those numbers. Just my opinion. I agree that if you made these 2 players go by their 2014 salaries they would be the only 2 going by that year. All other players are going by 2013 numbers and even free agents won't be going by their 2014 pay. I'll go with majority but I believe the rule was off no 2013 salary is present the default pay is .5.
|
|
timpo
Junior Member
Posts: 55
|
Post by timpo on Jan 11, 2014 21:30:31 GMT
Not all rookies are paid league minimum (including the players in question) so to use league minimum for them seems a bit arbitrary--I can understand the logic to a degree as they had no 2013 salary but given the situation using 2014 salary seems to make the most sense.
|
|
|
Post by Brian Shepard on Jan 15, 2014 2:49:21 GMT
Looks like we will be going with 2014 salaries for these guys. Thanks!
|
|