Roster Violations poll

[Royals]

Pretty self-explanatory.

[Dodgers]

There should also have been an inclusion of a timeline for allowing trades, this is not to suggest that GMs are allowed weeks to make trades, just a reasonable, to be determined time period once they've been notified, which would be determined depending on this vote.

[Royals]

There should also have been an inclusion of a timeline for allowing trades, this is not to suggest that GMs are allowed weeks to make trades, just a reasonable, to be determined time period once they've been notified, which would be determined depending on this vote.

I figured we'd do that in a second vote, depending on the result of this one.

[Dodgers]

Your lack of mention of a timeframe seems notable given your position on the subject in question. That is why I mentioned it.

[Royals]

Your lack of mention of a timeframe seems notable given your position on the subject in question. That is why I mentioned it.

I should have put it in the message body of the original header. There are enough different factors involved in this one, trade or no trade, time frame, penalties, policing, etc. that it seems wise to present each one separately rather than throwing up 5 or 6 holistic proposals which try to cover all the bases.

[Rangers]

Whatever we decide about this, I think that timeline is the most important aspect. I pointed out to Bren and some others that they were over the limit during the draft, and I know that what was going through my mind at the time wasn't that it mattered how they got under, just that they did so very quickly.

[Giants]

For the moment I'm going to vote "Allow them to make trades" because I'm unclear exactly when rosters need to be in compliance. Is it Opening Day? Is it after the draft? I think the best way to handle it is amnesty now (like this is the league's freebie) and that there will be more active enforcement in the future so that the rule starting next year will be cuts.

[Rangers]

For the moment I'm going to vote "Allow them to make trades" because I'm unclear exactly when rosters need to be in compliance. Is it Opening Day? Is it after the draft? I think the best way to handle it is amnesty now (like this is the league's freebie) and that there will be more active enforcement in the future so that the rule starting next year will be cuts.

As I've already said, I think that even in the future, time is more of an issue than how they get under, but regardless, I agree with this sentiment.

[Padres]

I think the best way to handle it is amnesty now (like this is the league's freebie) and that there will be more active enforcement in the future so that the rule starting next year will be cuts.

At this point in time, I agree ...

[Dodgers]

Brett and I talked about this a bit and came up with a few ideas:

Since going over the limit can now only be accomplished by trades, thanks to my recent fix to OOPSS, you have 24 hours after your trade is approved to get legal by trade or add/drop. However, you only get 1 opportunity at trading. If that trade is vetoed, you must add/drop. Also, if nobody catches it in that first 24 hours, you're still only allowed to add/drop. You don't get the point at which it is caught + 24 hours to work out a trade, just 24 hours from trade passing.

Two possible penalties could be ExCo choosing who on your team to release or a transaction freeze, where you can't add/drop for a set period.

[Cardinals]

Sounds good

[Giants]

Sounds good. As an ExCo how do we decide who to cut? Much as many of us would have loved to I'm assuming that if JB hadn't fixed his roster we would not have chosen to cut A-Rod and Pujols.

[Rangers]

My attitude is that our intent is to drop someone bad, but to not hold ourselves responsible for making the right pick. If there is some no name prospect that the GM thinks is totally awesome but we or whichever of us doesn't appreciate and cuts, too bad for him. We'll take one glance at the roster and cut the worst looking non-draftee.