Minor League options in 2007?

[Eumel]

This may be a lapse of memory, but I think in OOTP2006 players that were on the 40-man but not on the 25-man roster at the start of the season (i.e., after spring training) always lost an option year -- regardless of how often they were actually sent down during spring. If they had no option years left, they weren't forced onto waivers though. Am I remembering this correctly?

What about the following solution:

At the end of spring training, when the regular season starts, don't allow such players in the minors. If there is a player with 0 option years left that is not on your 25-man roster, the roster setup is illegal and the game would not proceed. You'd have to either put him on waivers or on the 25-man roster. Once the roster is legal, all players on the 40-man but not on the 25-man will lose their option year.

Or alternatively: At the beginning of spring training, all players on the 40-man roster automatically go into the active roster. Whenever someone is sent down, he uses an option year, even in spring training.

[Solonor]

Originally Posted by Eumel

Or alternatively: At the beginning of spring training, all players on the 40-man roster automatically go into the active roster. Whenever someone is sent down, he uses an option year, even in spring training.

I am 99% sure that's the way it worked in 2006, and people complained, so Markus changed it. I know that if it were this way in our online league, there would be a major revolt.

While I agree that people should have the option of playing with all the real rules through history, and I look forward to LGO's suggestions for 2008, I still don't see that the current game allows you to leave a player languishing in the minors forever, which (I thought) was the original complaint. It may not handle it in an historically accurate way, but it handles it.

[CobaltJays]

Originally Posted by Solonor

I am 99% sure that's the way it worked in 2006, and people complained, so Markus changed it.

This is a definite buzz-killer for me. Personally I don't see why there are even options in the game if there's no intention of making them work properly. As it stands now, options in the game bear little resemblance to options in real life.

I know that if it were this way in our online league, there would be a major revolt.

In that case, if people don't like how options work in real life, they should have just turned them off in the game. Quite frankly, I'm dumbfounded as to why a feature would be deliberately broken like this.

As far as I'm concerned, this needs to be fixed in the first patch, if not in the next three weeks before the game is released. This is something I'm going to be quite vocal about until it is fixed.

[CobaltJays]

dola

Thinking about this, I’m not sure what purpose options are supposed to serve in the game in their presently broken state. It seems like much of the heavy lifting has been transferred to minor league free agency, which isn’t working properly either (as noted earlier in this thread).

Here are a couple scenarios illustrating why these two features desperately need to be fixed:

1) You have a minor league player who hasn’t done much in his career since you drafted him. However, in his fifth year in your minor league system, he finally starts to develop and becomes a solid prospect. At the end of that year, you decide to put him on your 40-man roster and protect him from the Rule 5 draft. He’s still not quite ready for the big leagues and he still needs some time in the minors to develop.

Here’s where the game and real life diverge: In real life, he would be yours for another three years before he even needed to set foot in the major leagues because he's on the 40-man roster. In the game, however, you could lose him after just one more year due to minor league free agency.

2) Due to injuries, your major league club is desperate for a pitcher. You just drafted a guy in June who looks almost ready for the major leagues. You decide to add him to the 40-man roster and call him up to the big leagues. Once August rolls around your staff is healthy and you option the rookie back to the minors.

The game/real life divergence: In real life, by calling this guy up right after being drafted, you only have the ability to send him down to the minors for two more seasons before you have to expose him to waivers. In the game, you can hang onto him for six years before minor league free agency kicks in for him.

As things stand now, if Solonor’s descriptions are accurate, the game does a terrible job of replicating real-life roster rules. In some instances you’re not going to have a player as long as you’re rightfully entitled to, and in others you can hang onto him for far too long. Fixing the game so that you have to option players to the minors before each season and making players on the 40-man roster ineligible for minor league free agency should be a top priority.

This game is trying to mimic how things are in real life in many ways, yet apparently a conscious decision has been made to keep the above things unrealistic. This is very disappointing, to say the least. These things should either be fixed or removed from the game altogether. Their current broken state is unacceptable.

[The Wolf]

Originally Posted by Le Grande Orange

Recommended reading in this regard:

http://mysite.verizon.net/brak2.0/rules.htm

Thanks for the link.

The game should vary the roster size historically according to the year. If the year is 1946, the roster size should be 30/48 instead of 25/40.

[Solonor]

Originally Posted by CobaltJays

1) You have a minor league player who hasn’t done much in his career since you drafted him. However, in his fifth year in your minor league system, he finally starts to develop and becomes a solid prospect. At the end of that year, you decide to put him on your 40-man roster and protect him from the Rule 5 draft. He’s still not quite ready for the big leagues and he still needs some time in the minors to develop.

Here’s where the game and real life diverge: In real life, he would be yours for another three years before he even needed to set foot in the major leagues because he's on the 40-man roster. In the game, however, you could lose him after just one more year due to minor league free agency.

Agreed. Putting him on your 40-man roster should protect him from minor league free agency. You are very likely able to sign him to a minor league contract extension, so it's not necessarily the end of the world, but you're right. I will double-check this and see that it's reported (if it isn't already).

Originally Posted by CobaltJays

2) Due to injuries, your major league club is desperate for a pitcher. You just drafted a guy in June who looks almost ready for the major leagues. You decide to add him to the 40-man roster and call him up to the big leagues. Once August rolls around your staff is healthy and you option the rookie back to the minors.

The game/real life divergence: In real life, by calling this guy up right after being drafted, you only have the ability to send him down to the minors for two more seasons before you have to expose him to waivers. In the game, you can hang onto him for six years before minor league free agency kicks in for him.

In OOTP, you still only have the ability to send him down to the minors for two more seasons before he has to go through waivers. PLUS, if you try and take him off your 40-man roster, he will have to clear waivers. The difference, I think, is that you're saying every player on the 40-man roster that is not on the active roster should be forced to should go through waivers every year and lose an option year every year. Am I right?

If so, that sounds awful, and we would choose to turn such options off. However, I can see where it would be a good game option for some people.

I completely disagree with the notion that the game is unplayable because of either of these issues. But that's just my opinion.

[CobaltJays]

Originally Posted by Solonor

In OOTP, you still only have the ability to send him down to the minors for two more seasons before he has to go through waivers. PLUS, if you try and take him off your 40-man roster, he will have to clear waivers. The difference, I think, is that you're saying every player on the 40-man roster that is not on the active roster should be forced to should go through waivers every year and lose an option year every year. Am I right?

I'll clarify. My issues are when options are actually used by the team. In the scenario you quoted from my previous post, I was talking about a situation where a player could technically be out of options after just three years of professional baseball if he was added to the 40-man roster in his first year, but in the game he could also be kept longer than that without being exposed to waivers.

Here's where the game and real life appear to be in sync: Every player has three options (or, more accurately, option years) where they can be recalled and sent to the minors freely while on the 40-man roster. If they are sent to the minors one year, that uses up one of their option years. If they're not sent to the minors in a year, they don't use an option. After a player has used all three options, he needs to clear waivers before he can be sent to the minors again.

Real life and the game appear to diverge after that. In real life in spring training, the team has its entire 40-man roster with them. To get the roster down to 25, teams will option their players with options remaining down to the minors, and players who are out of options will have to clear waivers before being sent down. The key thing here is that an option is used when a player is sent to the minors during spring training.

In 6.5 (and 2007 as well, apparently), a team's roster never expands to the full 40 players in the offseason as it does in real life, so players are never optioned to the minors in spring training. As a result, as long as you don't recall a player who is out of options, he never has to clear waivers because technically he hasn't been sent down. This leads to the scenario the original poster was talking about: players who can stay in the minors an extended amount of time even though they're out of options.

I completely disagree with the notion that the game is unplayable because of either of these issues. But that's just my opinion.

I wouldn't say the game is unplayable, but it certainly lessens my enjoyment of the game when rosters are not dealt with properly. The ability to keep a player who is out of options down in the minors indefinitely is almost like a cheat. It's definitely an issue that needs to be fixed.

[Solonor]

Originally Posted by CobaltJays

In 6.5 (and 2007 as well, apparently), a team's roster never expands to the full 40 players in the offseason as it does in real life, so players are never optioned to the minors in spring training. As a result, as long as you don't recall a player who is out of options, he never has to clear waivers because technically he hasn't been sent down. This leads to the scenario the original poster was talking about: players who can stay in the minors an extended amount of time even though they're out of options.

The roster does expand for spring training. The only difference is that options are not used up at the end of spring training when you send a player back down to the minors (which, technically, you are not doing).

So, yes, you can get away with bringing a player to spring training for 3 seasons without using up options. That still doesn't mean you get to keep him in the minors forever.

Originally Posted by CobaltJays

The ability to keep a player who is out of options down in the minors indefinitely is almost like a cheat. It's definitely an issue that needs to be fixed.

I understand what you're saying about the rules not being followed to the letter.

I don't understand the repeated statement that you can keep a guy in the minors forever, because it's just not true! As long as you turn on all the rules available to you in the game (which, admittedly, are not perfect), you cannot keep a guy in the minors forever.

[disposableheros]

Originally Posted by Solonor

The difference, I think, is that you're saying every player on the 40-man roster that is not on the active roster should be forced to should go through waivers every year and lose an option year every year. Am I right?

If so, that sounds awful, and we would choose to turn such options off. However, I can see where it would be a good game option for some people.

no, he's not saying EVERY player on the 40-man thats not going to be on the 25-man after ST has to clear waivers. he's saying every player not on the 40-man thats not going to be on the 25-man after ST, THAT IS OUT OF OPTIONS, has to clear irrevocable waivers.

and yes, in MLB, those who are on the 40-man at the end of ST, but not on the 25-man, DO lose an option every year.

it sounds awful to the MLB GMs as well, but thats the way it is

<STYLE type="text/css">.wysiwyg { background-attachment: scroll; background-repeat: repeat; background-position: 0% 0%; background-color: #f5f5ff; background-image: none; color: #000000; font-family: Verdana, Arial, Arial; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; font-size: 10pt; line-height: normal } p { margin: 0px; }</STYLE>

[CobaltJays]

Originally Posted by Solonor

The roster does expand for spring training. The only difference is that options are not used up at the end of spring training when you send a player back down to the minors (which, technically, you are not doing).

Technically in real life, you are. The transaction page in late-March is filled with guys sent on optional assignments.

I don't understand the repeated statement that you can keep a guy in the minors forever, because it's just not true! As long as you turn on all the rules available to you in the game (which, admittedly, are not perfect), you cannot keep a guy in the minors forever.

In that case, how is the matter dealt with in 2007? If minor league free agency is going to be fixed so that players on the 40-man roster are not eligible for it, how can players get out of the minors when they're out of options and not recalled to the majors?

[Eumel]

Originally Posted by Eumel

This may be a lapse of memory, but I think in OOTP2006 players that were on the 40-man but not on the 25-man roster at the start of the season (i.e., after spring training) always lost an option year -- regardless of how often they were actually sent down during spring. If they had no option years left, they weren't forced onto waivers though. Am I remembering this correctly?

I can confirm this now. In OOTP2006, players do indeed use an option year if they are on the 40-man roster and never called up to the majors. This happens at the end of spring training. Even if you never bother to promote them to the extended 40-man active roster during spring, the option is used. If such a player has no option year left, nothing happens and you can keep him in the minors. This is the one caveat which should be fixed at some point. It's not that urgent for me, though...

[Solonor]

Originally Posted by disposableheros

no, he's not saying EVERY player on the 40-man thats not going to be on the 25-man after ST has to clear waivers. he's saying every player not on the 40-man thats not going to be on the 25-man after ST, THAT IS OUT OF OPTIONS, has to clear irrevocable waivers.

Oops. I meant to just say "lose an option every year" without the "go through waivers" bit. I understood what he was saying, I just didn't regurgitate it properly.

[Solonor]

Originally Posted by CobaltJays

In that case, how is the matter dealt with in 2007? If minor league free agency is going to be fixed so that players on the 40-man roster are not eligible for it, how can players get out of the minors when they're out of options and not recalled to the majors?

Heh. Now, that is a quandary. If he fixes the bug, then you will be able to keep him down forever... as long as you feel like wasting a spot on your 40-man roster forever.

Maybe he shouldn't fix the bug? (Kidding.)

[Solonor]

Originally Posted by Eumel

I can confirm this now. In OOTP2006, players do indeed use an option year if they are on the 40-man roster and never called up to the majors. This happens at the end of spring training. Even if you never bother to promote them to the extended 40-man active roster during spring, the option is used. If such a player has no option year left, nothing happens and you can keep him in the minors. This is the one caveat which should be fixed at some point. It's not that urgent for me, though...

That's what I thought, too. I'm sure this was changed for 2007. Maybe it wasn't intentional, though.

So, if I get this straight, there are two things I need to report to be fixed:

1. At the end of spring training, when you trim your roster back, every player who will wind up in the minors should use up an option year. If the player is out of option years, then he must go through irrevocable waivers. (Basically, make it work like 2006 with the waivers loophole fixed.)

2. When a player becomes eligible for minor league free agency, he should be "protected" as long as he is on the team's 40-man roster.

Correct?

[CobaltJays]

Originally Posted by Solonor

Correct?

Bingo.

[Le Grande Orange]

Originally Posted by The Wolf

Thanks for the link.

I came across that very useful site some years ago. So I'm always quick to share it when it comes to rules-related questions.

Originally Posted by The Wolf

The game should vary the roster size historically according to the year. If the year is 1946, the roster size should be 30/48 instead of 25/40.

I've made that point in the beta forums, but I'm not sure if it will be implemented.

Strictly speaking, the expanded roster size after WWII wasn't quite what that site mentions from what I've found. The active limit was actually 25, but there were 5 additional active roster slots opened up only for those players returning from WWII service. They could remain on these special roster slots for up to one year after being discharged. In some cases players returning from military service did not count at all against the player limits until they actually appeared in a game (this was the kind of rule used after the Korean War).

I found newspaper articles explaining the nature of these rules but there are still a few areas where things are a bit unclear.

[ctorg]

Originally Posted by The Wolf

Thanks for the link.

The game should vary the roster size historically according to the year. If the year is 1946, the roster size should be 30/48 instead of 25/40.

You can set it that way manually each year. Not sure if the rule changes happen on their own in 2007, though.

[JTSMOOTH]

1. At the end of spring training, when you trim your roster back, every player who will wind up in the minors should use up an option year. If the player is out of option years, then he must go through irrevocable waivers. (Basically, make it work like 2006 with the waivers loophole fixed.)

2. When a player becomes eligible for minor league free agency, he should be "protected" as long as he is on the team's 40-man roster.

Correct?

You got it and thanx to the numerous others who helped explain what I was getting at

JT

[disposableheros]

Originally Posted by Solonor

That's what I thought, too. I'm sure this was changed for 2007. Maybe it wasn't intentional, though.

So, if I get this straight, there are two things I need to report to be fixed:

1. At the end of spring training, when you trim your roster back, every player who will wind up in the minors should use up an option year. If the player is out of option years, then he must go through irrevocable waivers. (Basically, make it work like 2006 with the waivers loophole fixed.)

2. When a player becomes eligible for minor league free agency, he should be "protected" as long as he is on the team's 40-man roster.

Correct?

this was 'discussed' (to put it kindly) and TT'd early in beta and shot down not too long after. IMO, in that discussion, there were too many chiefs and not enough indians and Markus was left in a quandry. there were too many conflicting opinions on the MLB rules, even though i knew for a fact mine was right

i'll try to find and bump the beta thread for you.

maybe some support from the community at large will help, though i believe its not a widely held opinion that it needs to be fixed

[Solonor]

Originally Posted by disposableheros

this was 'discussed' (to put it kindly) and TT'd early in beta and shot down not too long after. IMO, in that discussion, there were too many chiefs and not enough indians and Markus was left in a quandry. there were too many conflicting opinions on the MLB rules, even though i knew for a fact mine was right

i'll try to find and bump the beta thread for you.

maybe some support from the community at large will help, though i believe its not a widely held opinion that it needs to be fixed

That's what I thought. I know there were tons of spring training discussions. And I could have sworn that one of the things that people were complaining about was the fact that you used up option years in spring training, so Markus "fixed" it!

BTW, I TT'd those two issues just to get them in the hopper, but before I did that I looked to see if someone else had done it. There are a bazillion different conflicting roster rules suggestions in TT, and if Markus implements them all, then the game will asplode.