Johan Santana is going to wreck my Rotisserie League

[Toddzilla]

Actually, the rules that pertain to Santana are going to do it, so I need some advice from the wise ones...

I play in a 12-team NL-only 5x5 league that's been going since college. We start our 18th year this year. Our constitution states that when a player gets traded to the AL, the owner of that player gets the players coming back at a salary of $10 with the option of a 3-year contract at the end of the year (the same contract status as an in-season free agent). In the case of a multi-player deal where 2 owners lose players, they have to agree on who gets what players and what - if any - compensation takes place.

So the problem is that some owner is going to get Santana this year for $10 - WAY WAY under-value, and then be able to sign him after the year for 3 years at $15, $20, and $25 - still pretty undervalued as it stands today.

Normally, the quality of players changing leagues doesn't present this big of a discrepancy between value and contract, but this is a big one.

Half of the league wants to remain status-quo, half want to ditch the rule altogether and make Santana a FA. I propose whomever gets Santana can keep him in 2008 for $10, but he becomes a free agent at the end of the season.

Taking the temperature of the other owners, this will not end well.

[Lathum]

so wait. Someone in your league actualy had one of the players traded to the Twins on their roster?

[st.cronin]

I wouldn't change the rules at all.

[Toddzilla]

so wait. Someone in your league actualy had one of the players traded to the Twins on their roster?One guy had Pelfrey and another had Gomez - both in their minors

[st.cronin]

Its the Mets, you know Santana's going to flame out.

[ISiddiqui]

One guy had Pelfrey and another had Gomez - both in their minors

Wow.. I have a feeling they aren't going to agree on the split. But you had to know this rule had this potential. Prospects for small team stars happens every once in a while.

[Anthony]

if I was going to be getting Santana and you guys decided to change the rules, i would simply leave your league. simple as that.

[johnnyshaka]

I think it's horseshit when rules change on the fly like this one could...whether I'd be getting Santana or not.

[rkmsuf]

I like how this will "wreck" your league.

translation: I won't win.

[ISiddiqui]

I like how this will "wreck" your league.

translation: I won't win.

No, that's a bad translation :p. I have seen how disagreements over a rule, applied or not applied can completely rip apart a league and have a bunch of owners leave.

It definately has the possibility of wrecking his league, even though they should have thought of this beforehand.

[larrymcg421]

Changing the rule is fine as long as it only affects future transactions. Changing it to affect what has already happened is nothing short of cheating. I would probably quit a league if such a move was even considered.

[johnnyshaka]

I'd also be curious to see what the other owner gets as compensation for not getting Santana.

[st.cronin]

Changing the rule is fine as long as it only affects future transactions. Changing it to affect what has already happened is nothing short of cheating. I would probably quit a league if such a move was even considered.

I agree.

The rule should be, the two owners bid for Santana. The difference between the winning bid and 10 dollars, the losing team gets to pick a replacement player of that value or less off the winners roster.

[Mustang]

I'm in a 11 team 5x5 keeper NL only league that has been running for about 20 years. We had the exact same rule until about 4 years ago and then it was scrapped completely in the offseason due to situations like this where players were getting WAY undervalued (and we have 6 year contracts)

You have 2 issues

A. How the hell are the Pelfrey/Gomez owners going to agree about the split
B. You've introduced Santana into your league at $10

My suggestions -

Scrap the rule. It leads to these issues. Granted worst case scenario just happens, but it did and could occur in the future. For our league, if a player is sent to the AL in the offseason, you just lose them. It happens. If it happens in season, you just get their AL stats if they are on the active roster. Reserve guys are lost.

For the Gomez/Pelfrey, let them fight it out. Worst case, only those 2 can bid on Santana at the draft OR allow them to just do a trade. (Ok, I keep Santana but, I'll give you X/Y/Z...)

[Toddzilla]

I'd also be curious to see what the other owner gets as compensation for not getting Santana.Yes - thats the current rule. When 2 or more owners are involved, they agree to compensation. This part has *never* been an issue, so there isn't any worries there.

We're just evenly divided between the "don't change anything" despite the rule unbalancing the league, and the "make a change to keep the competitive balance" despite the injustice to the potential Santana owner.

Again, I'm proposing a middle-ground: Let the owner keep Santana for this year, but he becomes a free agent at the end of the 2008 season.

[Passacaglia]

So the rules say they "have to" agree on the split? What happens if they don't?

[Toddzilla]

Dola - to re-iterate, there will be no "fighting it out" over Santana. The owners will agree on something, of that everyone is confident.

This issue is *only* about the competitive balance of the league being put into question by the current rule which allows Santana to be tied down for 4 years at $10-$15-$20-$25 which by current estimation is extremely undervalue.

[Toddzilla]

So the rules say they "have to" agree on the split? What happens if they don't?Well, "have to" in this case is "always has". The comissioner can step in if they can't agree and make a decision, which is based on the players lost. In this case, the Gomez owner would get Santana since he's the bigger prospect and then he'd have to give up a package of players and supplemental draft picks to the Pelfrey owner.

[Mustang]

This issue is *only* about the competitive balance of the league being put into question by the current rule which allows Santana to be tied down for 4 years at $10-$15-$20-$25 which by current estimation is extremely undervalue.

Honestly, there is nothing you can do about that.

Yes, it sucks.

But, not like this came out of the sky like a bolt of lightning. The Santana rumor has been out there for months. Should have brought it up then to everyone and said 'Ahh.. don't think this is a good idea anymore'. That way, everyone is on the same page at that time and anyone could get him at that point. (Unless your teams consists of all Brewers, Pirates and Nats)

It would be great if the 2 owners said 'You know, this really isn't good for the balance of the league so, let's just scrap this whole thing completely' but you can't be dick based and do it now. Of course they are going to be probably pissed and rightly so.

In the end, if you decide to make Santana a FA or whatever then if you don't scrap the rule you need to apply it to all future AL trades. Making a change JUST for Santana would really be crappy.

[Shkspr]

This issue is *only* about the competitive balance of the league being put into question by the current rule which allows Santana to be tied down for 4 years at $10-$15-$20-$25 which by current estimation is extremely undervalue.

Is he still undervalued if he blows out his arm in May?

If the two owners can come up with adequate compensation, there's no issue. They get the benefit of having the wisdom to stockpile players in their minors that are judged IRL to be worth some percentage of Johan Santana.

Change the rule for the future, by all means. Try doubling the salary for all such players rather than adding $5 each year. This would get a player of Santana's caliber into the FA pool after 3 years, and only make him a bargain for 2, in all likelihood.

But for this one trade? Suck it up and give kudos to the two lucky bastards - the one who gets Santana and the one who gets to extort adequate compensation from him. You should only have the league get involved in this one deal if the two can't agree. st. cronin's suggestion seems like a good starting point in that instance.

[Captain2711]

One guy had Pelfrey and another had Gomez - both in their minors


Pelfrey wasn't in the deal. The AAA pitcher was Humber.

[Lathum]

One guy had Pelfrey and another had Gomez - both in their minors

Pelfry wasn't in the deal.

[Captain2711]

Pelfry wasn't in the deal.

I just said that.

[molson]

if I was going to be getting Santana and you guys decided to change the rules, i would simply leave your league. simple as that.

Yup.

It seems like a major element of the strategy in that league would be to acquire prospects that might score you a cheap star player. Now someone pulls that strategy off and some want to screw him over? That's crap.

[Oilers9911]

Yep, a rule is a rule. If the guys in the league want it changed, vote on it for next year but for this year it is what it is.

[rowech]

Gotta change it in the future and just live with it. I hate leagues where random rule changes happen.

[Toddzilla]

Pelfrey wasn't in the deal. The AAA pitcher was Humber.

Pelfry wasn't in the deal.Yeah, that's who I meant :)

[JonInMiddleGA]

Changing the rule is fine as long as it only affects future transactions. Changing it to affect what has already happened is nothing short of cheating. I would probably quit a league if such a move was even considered.

+2

Absolutely zero chance in hell I'd stay in a league that retrofitted a rule & screwed me over when all I had done was follow the same rules everybody else had.

And I'd tell you how far to shove your "middle ground" compromise pdq too.

[flere-imsaho]

I'm anticipating being the subject of a similar rule revision in the next year, in a keeper fantasy football league.

There are two rules in question. The first is the keeper rule, which states that you can keep two players from your final roster the previous year - pretty standard. If you keep 1, you lose your first round draft pick. If you keep 2, you lose your first and second round draft picks. Pretty straightforward.

So, two seasons ago I keep no one and draft Steven Jackson in the first round, some RB whom I forget in the second (they didn't do well, whomever it was) and take a flier on Frank Gore later on. You know how this ends: I now have Steven Jackson & Frank Gore in perpetuity.

It gets worse.

We also have a "rookie keeper" draft each year (none of this was my idea). In this draft, which happens before the regular draft, you can either draft a rookie from this year or keep a player you had originally drafted as a rookie.

So, in this year's "regular" draft, after keeping both Jackson & Gore, I took a later-round flier on Adrian Peterson.

So, I can now keep Steven Jackson, Frank Gore and Adrian Peterson in perpetuity. Needless to say, I've won 3 of the past 4 championships, and I didn't even have Tom Brady or Randy Moss on my team this year.

I'm thinking when we get around to the "rookie keeper" draft this year someone's going to complain.

[lynchjm24]

In our 16 year AL only league we've always had the rule that if someone gets traded they are gone. That's life. There is no other way in the world to play it because in our league all four of the Mets players would have been on someone's minor league roster.

[Pumpy Tudors]

I don't understand all these rules, but I think it sucks that saldana is fucking up your league this way, dude.

[Toddzilla]

+2

Absolutely zero chance in hell I'd stay in a league that retrofitted a rule & screwed me over when all I had done was follow the same rules everybody else had.

And I'd tell you how far to shove your "middle ground" compromise pdq too.While it's understandable that an owner would want to quit if he felt he was being unfairly singled out, as for the kind of owners that are "ME first" and don't care if there's a competitive balance and don't care if a majority of the league is upset - i.e. a guy like you just described? They're a dime-a-dozen and better off out of the league anyway.

[Toddzilla]

In our 16 year AL only league we've always had the rule that if someone gets traded they are gone. That's life. There is no other way in the world to play it because in our league all four of the Mets players would have been on someone's minor league roster.Yep - this was bound to happen. Either we're going to have to convince 4-5 guys that trades like this happen that under the current rules give a team a big 2-4 year advantage and deal with it or we have to convince 4-5 guys that we have to bite the bullet now for future sanity.

As in cases like this, you can never make everyone happy, you can only hope to what is in the best interests of the league. What that is exactly, we don't know yet.

[molson]

While it's understandable that an owner would want to quit if he felt he was being unfairly singled out, as for the kind of owners that are "ME first" and don't care if there's a competitive balance and don't care if a majority of the league is upset - i.e. a guy like you just described? They're a dime-a-dozen and better off out of the league anyway.

Competitive Balance? "Me First"????

What if a team got loaded through more traditional ways and was dominating the league, frustrating everyone else. Would you break the team up via a dispsersal draft, and call the dominate team who was against it selfish because of his "me first" attitude?

This kind of thing hasn't come up in 18 years? I can't believe this is such an issue.

I'd be curious to hear the argument to change the rule here. Is there ANYONE who isn't in the league that would agree with that?? That's what you should base your decision on. Or set up a poll here and make it binding - no one here has any interest in the league.

[JonInMiddleGA]

They're a dime-a-dozen and better off out of the league anyway.

Probably why I don't involve myself in online/co-op/keeper leagues/etc.
I play to win 'em -- fair & square and by the rules, but with that as my goal.
I give less than a rat's ass about anybody else being happy, which is usually just bullshit code for "beating my ass". I don't play the willing loser for anybody, and that's all most leagues are looking for anyway.

[Logan]

Probably why I don't involve myself in online/co-op/keeper leagues/etc.
I play to win 'em -- fair & square and by the rules, but with that as my goal.
I give less than a rat's ass about anybody else being happy, which is usually just bullshit code for "beating my ass". I don't play the willing loser for anybody, and that's all most leagues are looking for anyway.

Jaded much?

[lynchjm24]

Yep - this was bound to happen. Either we're going to have to convince 4-5 guys that trades like this happen that under the current rules give a team a big 2-4 year advantage and deal with it or we have to convince 4-5 guys that we have to bite the bullet now for future sanity.

As in cases like this, you can never make everyone happy, you can only hope to what is in the best interests of the league. What that is exactly, we don't know yet.

We have an extremely complicated salary system and roster rules. It evens out in the end and it's another thing you have to consider in running your team. Hell, I'm still angry about when Shawn Green left Toronto for LA.

Any one off season can be tough, we had someone lose Tejada and Haren this off season and he also has Brian Roberts.

If I had Santana this off season I might have moved him for pennies on the dollar based on the Mets rumors a month ago. That's the risk the guy took in holding onto him.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Jaded much?

Just honest. Never really had a good experience with private leagues & see no reason on earth to ever expect one.

(FTR, I don't really consider the FOFC Yahoo ones "private" in that sense, as we don't have complete say so about the rules,etc)

[molson]

If I had Santana this off season I might have moved him for pennies on the dollar based on the Mets rumors a month ago. That's the risk the guy took in holding onto him.

Good point. Part of the fun of leagues with custom rules is coming up with new strategies to utilize them to your advantage. If you were smart enough to trade Santana last week, and you were able to get a contributing player, you were 2 steps ahead of everyone else and deserve the success the move brings you. Same as if you hoarded Mets prospects in the hopes/gamble that they'll end up in the Santana trade.

[Toddzilla]

Competitive Balance? "Me First"????

What if a team got loaded through more traditional ways and was dominating the league, frustrating everyone else. Would you break the team up via a dispsersal draft, and call the dominate team who was against it selfish because of his "me first" attitude?

This kind of thing hasn't come up in 18 years? I can't believe this is such an issue.

I'd be curious to hear the argument to change the rule here. Is there ANYONE who isn't in the league that would agree with that?? That's what you should base your decision on. Or set up a poll here and make it binding - no one here has any interest in the league.I'll address the questions one at a time, since they're barely related to one another.

Break a team up loaded the "traditional" way? That's just about as irrelevant a question as I could think, so suffice to say I'd say "No, I wouldn't."

This thing hasn't come up in 18 years? To this degree, no.

Is there anyone who would agree to changer the rule not in our league? Go back and read the thread, is seems there are few here who think the rule stinks. I posted this on the BaseballHQ forums, and it's 90%/10% in favor or dropping the rule *now*.

I keep wanting to use the phrase "integrity of the league", but haven't because is comes down on both sides. One one hand, a lucky owner is going to get an unfair competitive advantage for 4 years because of a bad rule. No one blames the owner. On the other hand, one owner is going to get robbed if the rule changes after the fact. Again, no one blames the owner.

Is this rule going to be changed? Without question. Do we change it now or do we ride it out for 4 years? We'll see.

[molson]

I'll address the questions one at a time, since they're barely related to one another.

Is there anyone who would agree to changer the rule not in our league? Go back and read the thread, is seems there are few here who think the rule stinks. I posted this on the BaseballHQ forums, and it's 90%/10% in favor or dropping the rule *now*.

Is this rule going to be changed? Without question. Do we change it now or do we ride it out for 4 years? We'll see.

There are definitely a few that thinks the rules stinks (personally, I think it's awesome rule, adding a whole new level of strategy). But all of those people think that you should just cancel the rule going forward. Nobody here thinks you should change the rule mid-transaction. I'm pretty surprised that BaseballHQ forum members think differently. If the team that lawfully had Santana finishes 2nd, there will always be an asterisk for the champion.

I've been in FBL league for about 5 years that's switching to keeper format this season - this thread will definitely come up as we put the finishing touches on that. Not so much for this specific rule, but to include a Constitutional requirement that NO new rules can effect things retroactively. That has to be clear from day 1, otherwise you'll run into an issue that just tears the league apart.

[Carman Bulldog]

I don't see any way that you can retro-actively change the rule. If the player getting Santana agrees to it, that's fine, but you can't screw the guy over after the fact for playing within the rules.

I know that if I was in the draft and knowing the rumours for the past few months, I would have been all over guys like Gomez, Humber, Guerra, Mike Pelfry and Fernando Martinez (assuming you can take a guy before he debuts). Everyone in your league had the opportunity to go after any of these guys at any time over the past few months.

What if, for instance, he had been traded to the Reds for something along the lines of Jay Bruce and Homer Bailey and one guy in your league has both of those prospects? Are you going to fuck that guy over in that scenario. He lost arguably two of the top prospects in baseball and what I'm sure would be a foundation of part of his team for years to come. Or would that be "different" due to it actually costing him something to get Santana?

[BYU 14]

Just be happy the Red Sox didn't get him.....

[larrymcg421]

I have to say that I fail to see the big problem here. I mean, if one player, even one as good as Santana, can screw up the competitive balance of the league to the degree that you seem to claim, then there are far bigger problems with your league than this one rule.

[stevew]

Santana's going to throw his arm out this year anyways. It's kind of a stupid rule, but it's on the books. I'd just roll with it. Let the two guys who lost the specs fight it out.

No point in wrecking an 18 year league over this.

[Mustang]

I have to say that I fail to see the big problem here. I mean, if one player, even one as good as Santana, can screw up the competitive balance of the league to the degree that you seem to claim, then there are far bigger problems with your league than this one rule.

Ring a ding ding

Especially with NL Only 12 team leagues where I assume you have 9 pitchers . Best laid plans can go to shit really really easy.

I started last year with Carpenter, Duke, Oswalt as the basis for my staff and added Willis at the end of April. By mid season Duke absolutely sucked, Carpenter was injured, Willis was sucking and the other guys I drafted just didn't pan out. I did the math at the All-Star break and it would have taken 6 players the quality of Chris Young to get my ERA/WHIP to respectability (not dominance).

Our league survived just nicely for 6 years with Pujols having the following contracts

$1, $1, $1, $6, $11, $16

Of course then last year he was $56 in his first year as a FA. (And will be back in the pool again...)