Yu Darvish

Cardinals · Post by **Cardinals** » Fri Dec 09, 2011 3:40 pm

He's been posted, obviously, with posting ending next week. Is that enough to make him eligible for our draft, just being posted? Or does he have to be signed, sealed and delivered by Jan. 1?

We should figure this out now before it becomes an problem.

Astros · Post by **Astros** » Fri Dec 09, 2011 3:41 pm

We know he's coming, I say make him good to go

Rangers · Post by **Rangers** » Sat Dec 10, 2011 3:30 am

My opinion is that we stick with the idea behind setting the Dec 31 deadline, because it removes the risk from drafting guys. The idea of a guy being eligible in MLB and not IBC has seemed to bother guys in the past, though, and I think I'm in the minority.

Maybe have a league-wide vote this month on it, majority wins? We can just vote on it here, but this is one of those darned if you do, darned if you don't things.

Padres · Post by **Padres** » Sat Dec 10, 2011 7:44 am

Rangers wrote:My opinion is that we stick with the idea behind setting the Dec 31 deadline, because it removes the risk from drafting guys. The idea of a guy being eligible in MLB and not IBC has seemed to bother guys in the past, though, and I think I'm in the minority.

I agree with Brett ... however, if we are in the minority and the Exec Comm (or league after a vote) wants to include Yu, I believe we have to amend our rule to include any player posted prior to 12/31 - and then the risk clearly falls on the GM who drafted a posted but unsigned player because if the player ends not signing he would not be allowed to play in the IBC.

Reds · Post by **Reds** » Sat Dec 10, 2011 8:09 am

I am with Brett and Jim on this because sticking with the signing date eliminates having to deal with international free agents individually. There are now many sources for players now and just because one of them has the posting procedure doesn't mean we should be treating them differently than the others. If we open this door we will need to address things like defection dates and other similar issues.

Dodgers · Post by **Dodgers** » Sat Dec 10, 2011 10:58 am

It'll be rough, but I don't think anyone's traded up yet to take him, so I think if he hasn't signed by the 1st he's out. I guess I'm okay with a league wide vote, but isn't the top half of the league going to be in favor of pushing him to next year when they might be able to trade up for him if they haven't already this year?

Rangers · Post by **Rangers** » Sat Dec 10, 2011 12:00 pm

Dodgers wrote:It'll be rough, but I don't think anyone's traded up yet to take him, so I think if he hasn't signed by the 1st he's out. I guess I'm okay with a league wide vote, but isn't the top half of the league going to be in favor of pushing him to next year when they might be able to trade up for him if they haven't already this year?

Yes, definitely a downside to allowing the full league to vote on something like that.

Dodgers · Post by **Dodgers** » Sun Dec 11, 2011 3:46 pm

Maybe the question should be asked of why put it to a full league vote since it seems like something the ExCo was specifically created to handle?

Padres · Post by **Padres** » Sun Dec 11, 2011 3:55 pm

Dodgers wrote:Maybe the question should be asked of why put it to a full league vote since it seems like something the ExCo was specifically created to handle?

I agree ...

Reds · Post by **Reds** » Sun Dec 11, 2011 5:32 pm

So do I

Rangers · Post by **Rangers** » Tue Dec 13, 2011 1:15 am

Let's vote, then.

Reds · Post by **Reds** » Tue Dec 13, 2011 12:56 pm

I vote he is out unless signed by 12/31

Rangers · Post by **Rangers** » Tue Dec 13, 2011 3:05 pm

Reds wrote:I vote he is out unless signed by 12/31

Me too.

Cardinals · Post by **Cardinals** » Tue Dec 13, 2011 3:40 pm

Agreed.

Astros · Post by **Astros** » Tue Dec 13, 2011 4:32 pm

Well he ain't getting to me at 7, I'll go along with y'all

Dodgers · Post by **Dodgers** » Tue Dec 13, 2011 5:01 pm

My vote agrees if..."signed" means the deal has been announced by the team or a major publication. Rumors of a signing are not enough, if necessary we will hold another vote to determine eligibility 12/31.

Padres · Post by **Padres** » Tue Dec 13, 2011 5:05 pm

Reds wrote:I vote he is out unless signed by 12/31

I am voting that any international player not signed by 12/31/2011 at 11:59 PDT is not eligible to be drafted or play in the IBC in 2012.

Reds · Post by **Reds** » Tue Dec 13, 2011 5:08 pm

I am voting that any international player not signed by 12/31/2011 at 11:59 PDT is not eligible to be drafted or play in the IBC in 2012.

That's the way I figured it as well.

Rangers · Post by **Rangers** » Tue Dec 13, 2011 5:50 pm

Dodgers wrote:My vote agrees if..."signed" means the deal has been announced by the team or a major publication. Rumors of a signing are not enough, if necessary we will hold another vote to determine eligibility 12/31.

I agree. It's a tough grey area with some of the more obscure players, but given who this is it seems unlikely that we won't know when he signs.

Rangers · Post by **Rangers** » Tue Dec 13, 2011 5:53 pm

And just so we're clear, my interpretation is that all we are doing here is staying consistent with our previous standard, so this can just be a reminder for the league that we haven't changed the rule and that Darvish and the rest of this draft are subject to it.

Is that everyone's recollection? I've spent so much less time thinking sim baseball for the past year that my memory isn't is good on this kind of thing.

Reds · Post by **Reds** » Tue Dec 13, 2011 5:55 pm

that is my recollection

Dodgers · Post by **Dodgers** » Tue Dec 13, 2011 9:03 pm

Mine as well, though I'm in your boat.

Cardinals · Post by **Cardinals** » Tue Dec 20, 2011 2:37 pm

Guys, I think we were wrong on this.

Here's the thread where we voted on the rule:

viewtopic.php?t=2517

and we went with option 1:

1. Leave the rule as it states currently and clarify that anyone from Cuba, regardless of age, and anyone who has played pro ball in Japan can be signed until the later date or can be drafted and retained.

And I think if we ruled that Japanese players et al are ineligible, then that would be a rule change, which is seemingly the heart of the issue right now -- that we're changing the rule with less than two weeks till the draft. By this ruling that we made, Cespedes would be eligible to be drafted too, and he'd need to sign by opening day.

Rangers · Post by **Rangers** » Tue Dec 20, 2011 7:15 pm

We didn't go back and reconsider that? I have done zero research and I don't remember anything specifically, but I thought I remembered being a little frustrated because y'all voted that and then came around later.

Reds · Post by **Reds** » Tue Dec 20, 2011 7:29 pm

I wasn't on ExCo then, but I thought the rule was different as well. Perhaps it never made it into the written rules.