Player trade date vs. player activation date

Player trade date vs. player activation date

Postby geoflin » Sun Jul 30, 2017 7:50 am

OK, I'm going to bring this discussion to this forum. In the case of Eduardo Nunez, he was traded on 7/26 to Boston with all kinds of publicity. OnRoto had a note that this trade occurred on this date. MLB also noted that the trade happened on this date. However, OnRoto did not list him as an available free agent on 7/26 or 7/27 because he had not yet been activated by the Red Sox. OnRoto did list him as being activated and available on 7/28 which was also correct.
I tried to make an analogy, and probably didn't do so very clearly, in one of my posts in Bell. I'll try again. A player is on the DL, lets say Christy Mathewson, and his team announces after Mathewson's rehab start on 7/25 that he will be activated to start in the majors on 7/30. OnRoto generally would list this announcement in the notes attached to Mathewson. If Mathewson is on one of our rosters he is eligible for activation on 7/30, if his owner activates him before that time it is an early activation and a charged transaction. If Mathewson is unowned his FAAB clock begins at noon on 7/30. The operative date is the activation date, not the date the announcement is made.
I see this as exactly what happened with Nunez. He was traded on 7/26, thus the announcement was made that the Red Sox were going to activate him. However, he was not actually activated until 7/28 because the Red Sox were in Seattle on 7/26, played a day game, then flew to Boston and had a day off before playing again on 7/28. Nunez joined the Red Sox in Boston. The Red Sox sent down Marrero to create room for Nunez, whom they then activated about 3 PM on 7/28.
So why should this situation be treated differently? An announcement of a future activation is not the same as the activation itself. If Mocksports in cases of players on the DL and in the minors uses the activation date rather than the announcement date as the deciding factor on eligibility, why should it be different for trades?
I also want to state here what I told Crosley privately. I did not place any bids for Nunez and do not intend to do so. I am not trying to make this point in order to create an opportunity for myself to claim Nunez, I just want to see the rules clear and be followed correctly.
Geoff
Feller - Blue Sox
Bell - Sapphire Sox 2016 Champions
Bob - Indigo Sox
Robinson - Azure Sox 2017 Champions
User avatar
geoflin
In the pantheon of greats
 
Posts: 1589
Joined: Mon Mar 11, 2013 11:42 pm
Location: Melrose MA

Re: Player trade date vs. player activation date

Postby Crosley » Sun Jul 30, 2017 12:33 pm

The problem with relying on underlying information like Nunez's actual activation date (which does not appear on OnRoto's transactions list) is that it puts an additional burden on LAs to research this information - either digging into the list of available players on OnRoto for a particular date or looking somewhere other than OnRoto. It also inevitably introduces conflicting interpretations of the situation among owners - one may see and use the OnRoto transaction (trade) date while another may act on the player's first appearance on "Available Players". A hybrid system in which OnRoto's transactions list is the primary source but it's subject to refinement/interpretation based on other info on OnRoto is kind of what we were trying to avoid by abandoning daily Reals a number of years ago.
    "Baseball players are smarter than football players. How often do you see a baseball team penalized for too many men on the field?"

      ― Jim Bouton
User avatar
Crosley
Frozen for DNA
 
Posts: 6604
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 1969 8:00 pm
Location: Cincinnati, Ohio

Re: Player trade date vs. player activation date

Postby geoflin » Sun Jul 30, 2017 3:13 pm

Maybe I'm not doing it correctly as LA but the first place I look for player availability, especially when determining the FAAB clock, is the OnRoto available player lists which have a date in red next to the player indicating the date he became available. Once I see this date I then click on his name to check the notes on transactions. I do the same as an owner - look at the available player list, check the date in red to see if the FAAB period is over or not, then submit my claim. If the player is not listed as available I assume I cannot claim him. So I don't find any need to search a variety of places to get the correct dates.
Geoff
Feller - Blue Sox
Bell - Sapphire Sox 2016 Champions
Bob - Indigo Sox
Robinson - Azure Sox 2017 Champions
User avatar
geoflin
In the pantheon of greats
 
Posts: 1589
Joined: Mon Mar 11, 2013 11:42 pm
Location: Melrose MA

Re: Player trade date vs. player activation date

Postby Crosley » Sun Jul 30, 2017 4:12 pm

We do it differently. I actually keep a running list in a spreadsheet of the OnRoto transactions. I can enter the player's name in one tab of the spreadsheet and it will show up the date and details of the latest transaction listed for him. I pretty much have to do this, since I'm LA for three leagues and take FAAB bids for a fourth.

Whichever way an LA gets the information, however, he would still only see July 26 as an effective date for Nunez's trade to Boston. The problem with him arises from the fact that OnRoto listed the trade on that date and our rules say that we use OnRoto exclusively for transaction dates. There is a provision for the Commish overruling OnRoto, but to my knowledge, Rick hasn't overruled July 26th.
    "Baseball players are smarter than football players. How often do you see a baseball team penalized for too many men on the field?"

      ― Jim Bouton
User avatar
Crosley
Frozen for DNA
 
Posts: 6604
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 1969 8:00 pm
Location: Cincinnati, Ohio

Re: Player trade date vs. player activation date

Postby geoflin » Sun Jul 30, 2017 5:15 pm

I am interested to see what Rick says. He was on line here both yesterday and today and although he takes FAAB bids for Robinson he hasn't posted anything there yet regarding Nunez.
It sounds like a lot of work keeping a spreadsheet of OnRoto transactions, especially since a large number of them must be for players who aren't owned and aren't going to be claimed in any of our leagues.
Depending on how this all turns out, maybe a small change in how the rules are written will help clarify things. As of now, rule 5.9.1 says "When a player becomes active and newly available to be claimed through a transaction...". In Nunez's case, he became active in the AL on 7/28 although the transaction occurred on 7/26. This is why I have been making the distinction between the transaction date and the date he became active. Trades are the only situation in which the transaction date might be different from the date of activation, and this has occurred before, generally when a player has to travel across the country to meet his new team which is what happened here. But there are other situations where it has occurred in the past and could again. One is when a team trades for a starting pitcher. In this case, the team doesn't generally activate him until the day he is going to start for them which might be as many as 4 days away. In the meantime they keep a reliever they might use on the 25 man roster.
In any of these situations there is nothing to prevent an owner from making an FAAB claim at any time after the transaction is announced so owners aren't really affected, the only question I am raising is when does the FAAB period end.
Geoff
Feller - Blue Sox
Bell - Sapphire Sox 2016 Champions
Bob - Indigo Sox
Robinson - Azure Sox 2017 Champions
User avatar
geoflin
In the pantheon of greats
 
Posts: 1589
Joined: Mon Mar 11, 2013 11:42 pm
Location: Melrose MA

Re: Player trade date vs. player activation date

Postby Rick Smetana » Sun Jul 30, 2017 10:23 pm

Since the bids were posted, I am not going to over-rule the early posts. When I received the FAAB Bids in both Robinson & Sparky, I went to the available player's list and in both leagues, I saw that On-Roto had them listed as being activated on 7/28, so I held off announcing the bids until 10pm tonight.

This is not the first time that On-Roto has changed the activation dates. I do not have an answer as to what we do, I, personally like using "MLBRosterMoves", but as someone noted, you might have to do some scrolling to find the time/date of the activation. I scroll down to the approximate date, then use control-F to find the player. Each LA has a different way of figuring out this information.

Right now, we are locked into using On-Roto by our rules, and if they change their activation dates, we'll just have to deal with it on a case by case basis.
Rick Smetana
DodgerBlu@aol.com
User avatar
Rick Smetana
The Commish
 
Posts: 15811
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 1969 8:00 pm
Location: Greenfield, Indiana

Re: Player trade date vs. player activation date

Postby geoflin » Mon Jul 31, 2017 8:03 am

I don't use Twitter so am unfamiliar with "MLBRosterMoves". But I do go to MLB on line where under players/transactions there is a list of transactions by day. If you click on a particular team it will sort to only transactions for that team, also by day. Is there any difference between the two? (Time of day is not listed on line but is it necessary? OnRoto doesn't note time of day, only the day the transaction occurred.) Because if not the on line site is very easy to use.
Geoff
Feller - Blue Sox
Bell - Sapphire Sox 2016 Champions
Bob - Indigo Sox
Robinson - Azure Sox 2017 Champions
User avatar
geoflin
In the pantheon of greats
 
Posts: 1589
Joined: Mon Mar 11, 2013 11:42 pm
Location: Melrose MA


Return to FBB Rules

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

cron