Posted by alogman1 on 1/7/2015 11:01:00 PM (view original):
If it means having to cut one of your 20 keepers, it's less likely, resulting in a large pool of FA talent available for first come, first serve pickup right after the R5 at a deep discount.   That could be equivalent to multiple consecutive picks at the top of the R5 draft if you are the first one to log on, creating a major imbalance.  That's what I think will happen.  But I guess we won't know til we try it.   Until then it's all speculation.  

More likely, the effect of owner A deciding that he doesn't want to sign a particular FA because he doesn't want to remove somebody else from his 20/40 is that owner B will has less competition bidding on that FA, and will be able to sign him more cheaply.

So yeah.  Maybe some of the lower end FA's might go unsigned until after R5, but the top end FA's, the ones who are more likely to be the impact players, will still be signed but at a market discount.  The bigger win goes to those who decide to still play hard at FA time. not those who are signing the leftovers immediately after R5.

Posted by shobob on 1/7/2015 11:13:00 PM (view original):
There will always be teams that don't even have 20 to keep. The better free agents will get signed in the FA signing period, guaranteed. I'll admit that having to drop a guy off your 20 will definitely act as a drag on signings, but I don't think it would add up to a competitive imbalance creating effect.

Actually, this is part of the strategy that makes this theme so intriguing.  You're being forced to make tough decisions in the preseason.  It's not going to be for the faint of heart.

If the concern is someone having access that others don't, just limit the number of signings for that period of concern.    Allow one signing for a 24 hour period.  Sure, one person will be first and get the best leftover but, if he only gets one, it's not nearly as big of an advantage as protecting 20 and stashing 5 on unassigned.    Problem solved. 

So I just posted this in the league chat, but my thought is why not exempt FA signings.  The goal is really a 20 man keeper league.  FA are fair game to all owners, so why is it a competitive advantage if someone signs 15 players and does not expose them to the R5 draft. I am not counting your own FA signed before the open signing period.  Nor would I treat waiver pickups in the same manner. You pick someone up and add them to the 40 you drop someone from your 40 (pre R5 draft).  Just trying to play a little devil's advocate.  

Posted by MikeT23 on 1/7/2015 1:36:00 PM (view original):
You can also designate long-term players(without waivers) if they have options and they won't be on your 40 or on the R5 lists.    It's a loophole.   I used it many times in the past.    And, there's also a timing issue.    You can sign players to 1 year deals late in FA and they are not on the R5. 

If you don't have rules to close loopholes, someone will exploit them to gain an advantage.   

I'm not worried about people signing 1 year contract players at the last minute and leaving them unassigned, thereby hiding them. I know from experience that a free agent who asks for a one year contract is never a game changer.

Designating without waivers will be penalized. I might need to write a line about that in the rules.

Posted by whboone on 1/8/2015 9:47:00 AM (view original):
So I just posted this in the league chat, but my thought is why not exempt FA signings.  The goal is really a 20 man keeper league.  FA are fair game to all owners, so why is it a competitive advantage if someone signs 15 players and does not expose them to the R5 draft. I am not counting your own FA signed before the open signing period.  Nor would I treat waiver pickups in the same manner. You pick someone up and add them to the 40 you drop someone from your 40 (pre R5 draft).  Just trying to play a little devil's advocate.  

This amounts to a watering down of the rules, making the concept less alluring.

No, they're usually older guys with limited value.   Just pointing out how someone could have a full roster before the R5 and could stash players on the unassigned list. 

But by limiting the FA period, you limit competition on free agency.  It's not a watering down of the rules.  You don't want teams to hold 40 players from year to year.  But why care if they sign free agents before or after the R5 draft?  Before the draft, it's a competitive market.  After the draft, it is first come first serve.  So we limit the signings day one.  How about day two?  Now we have added a layer of overview.  Instead, we just have to make sure that nobody has waiver players not assigned to their roster/40 man.  I just want to hear why FA signings have to be included in the 20 man limit.  Just give me the argument as to why it is important before the R5 draft, but not after.

Posted by shobob on 1/8/2015 10:42:00 AM (view original):

Posted by whboone on 1/8/2015 9:47:00 AM (view original):
So I just posted this in the league chat, but my thought is why not exempt FA signings.  The goal is really a 20 man keeper league.  FA are fair game to all owners, so why is it a competitive advantage if someone signs 15 players and does not expose them to the R5 draft. I am not counting your own FA signed before the open signing period.  Nor would I treat waiver pickups in the same manner. You pick someone up and add them to the 40 you drop someone from your 40 (pre R5 draft).  Just trying to play a little devil's advocate.  

This amounts to a watering down of the rules, making the concept less alluring.

Exactly.  The intent of the theme is 20 players, and the decisions you need to make to determine which 20 players at the time of R5.  If you make it "20 players and however many more you want to sign and keep unassigned".

Though I think I just thought of another loophole.

You sign a FA to a multi-year deal.  He still has options.  You assign him directly to AAA.   I don't think there's risk of a demotion penalty because you're doing it before Spring Training.  And I don't think he's added to the 40.  After the R5 draft, you promote him to the ML.  At the time of the R5 draft, he's not on the 20, is not on the unassigned list, and is not exposed to R5.  Technically adheres to the rule, but violates the spirit of it.

Am I missing something?

That loophole is covered in the rules as written.

Posted by MikeT23 on 1/8/2015 10:43:00 AM (view original):
No, they're usually older guys with limited value.   Just pointing out how someone could have a full roster before the R5 and could stash players on the unassigned list. 

I'm not going to get my panties in a bunch about older players with limited value. If someone loads up with those types of players, he's probably not doing himself a favor.

Posted by shobob on 1/7/2015 11:13:00 PM (view original):
There will always be teams that don't even have 20 to keep. The better free agents will get signed in the FA signing period, guaranteed. I'll admit that having to drop a guy off your 20 will definitely act as a drag on signings, but I don't think it would add up to a competitive imbalance creating effect.

This will be one of the most fun parts to me:  seeing how the economics will work.  Knowing that whatever price you pay for a FA you want will be counterbalanced by getting rid of another player.  It'll be an interesting dynamic to see where FA pricing goes...

I pretty irked that people are voting no based on an idea that was discussed on the world chat, but not mentioned here.

Since shobob is insisting that a discussion on the rules happen here. I would like to propose that the cut down to 20 be done by start of Free Agency rather than the last day of Free Agency. Each team would then be required to remain at 20 through the end of the Rule 5 draft, meaning that adding a player necessitates the releasing of a corresponding player to balance the sheets. This allows the released/DFA'd players to be claimed or clear waivers and gives teams more time to plan their rosters prior to the Rule 5 draft. The Rule 5 can be complicated enough without adding up to 640 extra players to it. If the best of those players have already been claimed and placed on the roster of weaker teams then it better helps to spread the talent out without overwhelming us in the Rule 5 draft.

Could someone please explain this idea, how it will reasonably be monitored and policed and it's merits HERE, so it can be discussed? From what I can see, the idea is that everyone has to have their 20 by the start of the free agency period. This means that people have 3 real life days to cut their 40 down to 20, which IMO is too much to ask, since we're all supposed have lives to live besides this game. I also can't see how this can be policed, besides trusting and hoping. The rules as proposed give me time (r5 freeze day) to ensure everyone is compliant.