Massive Rules Post (Updated 3-6-2011)

[dejota]

Sim Schedule

Here

Position Changes

Post in the 'Position Changes'. An admin reserves the right to veto any position change if we find it unrealistic or falls under the 'Don't Be An Ass' rule listed below

Winterball

Here

Free Agency

Here

Compensation

Here

Re-Signing Rules

In-Season

Off-Season

Buyouts

Here

Trading

No Trade Clauses

Here

Sign and Trades

Here

Waivers

Here

Team Banks

Here

Stadium Upgrade Guidelines

Here

Don't Be An Ass Rule

This rule is exactly as it's described. Being an Ass includes, but is not limited to: finding loopholes in the rules and/or circumventing the intent of the rules, treating fellow GMs like crap, running your mouth in the chat, setting goofy depth charts in your .team files, etc.

Penalties can range from a stern talking to, to fines to even being fired. The intent of this rule is to play nice and have a good time. So in the spirit of continuing a really great league DON'T BE AN ASS!

[dejota]

These aren't going to be perfect so please don't bust my chops too hard on things I missed. Just post here and we'll update if need be.

[psbaseballfan27]

"Resignings for Players Without An Agent

NEW INFO

Any player 89 or below must be re-signed in game AND have a minimum of 5 year major league service time in order to encourage more realistic contracts and free agency classes.

You may not resign a nonarbitration player with the intent of trading him. If you do this the player will be released and your team will be fined. Sign and trades do not happen in baseball because there's no incentive for the player to agree to one."

As a general concept I have no problem with this rule execept for the two reasons:1. Gm's may have made trades thinking they were getting affordable players for a few years now have to pony up a lot more cash and thus gives a major market team more of an advantage. 2. Gm's thinking that could sign players through arby at a much more reasonable rate went after free agents thinking they have more cap room. However with this new rule teams with some players instead of having to pay lets 3/21 may end up paying an extra 15-20 mil for a good arby player. Again I have no problem with this rule if applied starting next season with teams being given proper notice. Having said that I strongly object with this rule being placed with no notice and no time for teams to adjust.

['PR']

---

"Resignings for Players Without An Agent

NEW INFO

Any player 89 or below must be re-signed in game AND have a minimum of 5 year major league service time in order to encourage more realistic contracts and free agency classes.

You may not resign a nonarbitration player with the intent of trading him. If you do this the player will be released and your team will be fined. Sign and trades do not happen in baseball because there's no incentive for the player to agree to one."

As a general concept I have no problem with this rule execept for the two reasons:1. Gm's may have made trades thinking they were getting affordable players for a few years now have to pony up a lot more cash and thus gives a major market team more of an advantage. 2. Gm's thinking that could sign players through arby at a much more reasonable rate went after free agents thinking they have more cap room. However with this new rule teams with some players instead of having to pay lets 3/21 may end up paying an extra 15-20 mil for a good arby player. Again I have no problem with this rule if applied starting next season with teams being given proper notice. Having said that I strongly object with this rule being placed with no notice and no time for teams to adjust.

I second this statement.

[dejota]

This was discussed for a long time before being decided and implemented so I don't feel this is out of blue. I don't agree with the approach of targeting players specifically b/c they're 89 w/ really good vitals, it just furthers unreality and can often times lead to a player who should be starting for a small market team riding the pine for a larger market team to the tune of 1 or 2M per season...just because of what? Good timing?

Where-as a useful but ever increasing player is a catalyst for change IRL. He's either nontendered or shipped out to a team that can use him. That either helps small market teams acquire useful talent for cheaper or infuses a generally weak free agent class and the deeper the class the better it is for small market teams. So while short term, yes it's hard to argue that it helps small market teams, but in the big picture I don't think this is a rule that should wait. I'm already forced into that position myself w/ Bourbon and Bourgeious (although I'm getting no interest for some reason that's beyond me...) when in reality I would have to chose between an expensive ass bench that could potentially prevent me from re-signing one of my big boys or nontending and/or trading them.

[psbaseballfan27]

This was discussed for a long time before being decided and implemented so I don't feel this is out of blue. I don't agree with the approach of targeting players specifically b/c they're 89 w/ really good vitals, it just furthers unreality and can often times lead to a player who should be starting for a small market team riding the pine for a larger market team to the tune of 1 or 2M per season...just because of what? Good timing?

Where-as a useful but ever increasing player is a catalyst for change IRL. He's either nontendered or shipped out to a team that can use him. That either helps small market teams acquire useful talent for cheaper or infuses a generally weak free agent class and the deeper the class the better it is for small market teams. So while short term, yes it's hard to argue that it helps small market teams, but in the big picture I don't think this is a rule that should wait. I'm already forced into that position myself w/ Bourbon and Bourgeious (although I'm getting no interest for some reason that's beyond me...) when in reality I would have to chose between an expensive ass bench that could potentially prevent me from re-signing one of my big boys or nontending and/or trading them.

TO each of the points as best I can argue them: Discussion of this I never saw on any of the boards. As to players with an 89 over or less thats part of the stragegy with smaller teams being able to compete with major payroll teams. In most cases teams look to get mid to high 80's talent for this reason and this is a rare weapon the average team has to help save money. The third point however is one I want to stress, it hurts the value of a player when forced to trade him. When every team knows you have to trade a player because of contract they know not too offer much. Having answered these point to best of my abilities my remaining question still remains: Why was this rule implemented a thtis moment without notice for teams to adjust as suppose to next off season?

[psbaseballfan27]

What about IFA with regards to the above mentioned rule?

[dejota]

IFAs will either have a draft day deal in which case the 5yr rule would apply, but those signed to a contract are immune.

Also, small clarification to waiver rules

[dejota]

UPDATE WITH MORE COMPENSATION INFO PLEASE READ!!!!

[ezpkns34]

Suggestion: Some kind of fine for obvious tanking (such as best hitter on the bench or ace pitching long relief)