Dodgers awarded waiver claim on Gonzo

[swampdragon]

We simplified this whole problem in my NL league.

You get x dollars for FAAB and if you go goes to the other league then tough - but you can FAAB any player in any league once a week. So if a player is rumored to be called up from the minors, possibly being traded from the AL, or on a raft from Cuba -then you might FAAB him and put him on your bench

[swampdragon]

Well, by far the easiest way to handle this, imo, is to simply keep the guy's stats for the rest of the year (but no longer) if he goes to the other league. Everyone can bid on cross overs as they desire. No adding back FAAB dollars or dealing with rumors or whatever.

that works too - it just changes the strategy it for all of the owners

[Erik]

Well, by far the easiest way to handle this, imo, is to simply keep the guy's stats for the rest of the year (but no longer) if he goes to the other league. Everyone can bid on cross overs as they desire. No adding back FAAB dollars or dealing with rumors or whatever.

Indeed. It blows my mind why all "only" leagues don't do this.

[Judge Jude]

"At that point, you'd have been rewarded for something that never happened and it would be irreversible."

well, yes and no. You'd gain 5 "too many" one year and lose 5 "too many" the following year, but you make a fair point.

............

"This is why I tend to err on the side of inflexibility when it comes to league rules. The more you leave things open for interpretation and provide allowances, the more likely it is in the long run that one team will be massively screwed or massively benefit."

yes, we are in agreement.

actually, I've always been fine with the "keep stats til end of year" crossovers idea.
so this is a funny bunch of owners - they LOVE this crazy FAAB, they like flexibility, but they can't make their minds how to do it (Soler was 6-6, I had to settle the tie, in the Soler buyer's favor in that case).

I guess these things have always worked out ok - I reversed this one, for instance - so they think it's fine. I'm the only one with the headache!

[Fresno Bob]

Indeed. It blows my mind why all "only" leagues don't do this.

because then you don't get to say "tough titties".....for my money, only means only....

[chancellor]

I'd like to thank elD and Seitz for their comments. Thanks to you guys, I've managed to lose the second least valuable Red Sox player in the trade (Beckett) and get back the most valuable (Webster). Appreciate all your help.

[Erik]

for my money, only means only....

It doesn't even mean only in MLB anymore, thanks to interleague play.

[Gregg]

Rubby de la Rosa just threw a scoreless inning in relief back in AA ball for the Dodgers. Looks like they'll just torture Dodger fans for the rest of the year until he's shipped off.

He was part of my trade for a $51 Kemp (I will/can keep for 2 more years).

I have never minded the Dodgers, now it will be hard for me not to root for them. I really like what they have done.

[Judge Jude]

"the quagmire into which you're treading may be a sticky one."

well, the final ruling was the Rubby and Jerry do not qualify their owners for FAAB...

rubby, sticky - time to lock the thread!

[schlesinj]

"the quagmire into which you're treading may be a sticky one."

well, the final ruling was the Rubby and Jerry do not qualify their owners for FAAB...

rubby, sticky - time to lock the thread!

You made the right call. Sucks for the Rubby owners like myself that thought they had a great keeper for next year and get no value this year and get to drop him next year.

[Don Quixote]

"the quagmire into which you're treading may be a sticky one."

Aren't all quagmires sticky?

[Roto Rooter]

Awesome trades. Well worth it.

[senorsheep]

Awesome trades. Well worth it.

Meh, I can't knock The Dogs for taking a big swing at a winnable division. I wish my team would actually try to win...

[overkill94]

It's not like they emptied the farm for a bunch of rentals - they acquired Gonzo, Hanley, Crawford (who didn't even have a chance to contribute), and Beckett for at least the next couple years and gave up inconsequential prospects for the rentals.

[chancellor]

It's not like they emptied the farm for a bunch of rentals - they acquired Gonzo, Hanley, Crawford (who didn't even have a chance to contribute), and Beckett for at least the next couple years and gave up inconsequential prospects for the rentals.

While I think the Dodgers did the right thing - after their next TV deal, they may well be the richest franchise in baseball - I sure can't agree Webster is an "inconsequential prospect". I'm not up on Dodger prospects (not an NL only player or LAD fan), but I remember that Webster was the #2 pitching prospect in the system. I haven't seen your #1, but he must be one heck of a pitcher, because Webster has some very serious stuff and sure appears to have a very solid makeup. Webster reminds me a lot of Yovani Gallardo - but he has an even better fastball than Gallardo does.