Rule V signings

[Cardinals]

I don't think we can nullify any signings, but there were players who were signed off of Dan's Twitter page as he was releasing ZiPS on his Twitter feed.

Tullar messaged me and said that this is exactly why we do ZiPS bidding. We'll need to come up with a solution on what to do with these players.

[Padres]

I signed one after reading a Fangraphs article Dan wrote which included projections ...

[Guardians]

This seems to be a pretty new situation, correct? I don't recall a Rule V projections article in the past. I guess what we'll need to do is message that any zips released by Dan S in the offseason are subject to zips bidding, to include any articles, tweets, tweet replies, etc.

But our rule states that zips bidding covers all players whose projections are released. It's broad enough that I think you could nullify the signings and make sure everyone bids on those players through the process. Were any of the signed players on the teams that have already been released?

"ZiPS bidding is a process that covers both teams acquiring players when their ZiPS projections are released each winter and also players who leave the US to play elsewhere and return to an MLB team."

[Rangers]

I don't have a strong opinion on it but I do agree with Pat that for something unforeseen like this our language supports nullifying the signings if that's the cleanest thing we can do. The players could be bid on once that team comes up in his released projections or something if we needed to stall.

[Cardinals]

https://blogs.fangraphs.com/instagraphs ... e-5-draft/

I signed one after reading a Fangraphs article Dan wrote which included projections ...

Yeah, as Jim mentioned this was posted on FanGraphs. I think the two signings, Megill and Payton, go against what we have the bidding systems for. We should indeed reverse these signings and they should be subject to ZiPS bidding with the rest of their teams when posted.

[Padres]

Okay ... the Giants also signed Machin and Jimenez on or after 12/12.

[Astros]

Seems to me like we nullify them and close the loophole

[Cardinals]

Okay, let's nullify all these. I'll make a post.

[Guardians]

KICK THEIR ASS, SEABASS!

[Guardians]

Ken has asked exco to review the overruling related to his signing of Mark Payton.

"So I’m contesting having to release Payton, because I believe I may have signed him before the ZiPS were released, and that’s what the rule is about. Exco please review. Thanks."

Relevant facts I can find:

• Based on several articles, the Rule V draft was Thursday, Dec. 12.

• Ken signed Mark Payton at 3:58 p.m. Thursday, Dec. 12.

• Dan Z's Fangraphs article projecting the players taken in the draft was posted on Thursday, Dec. 12, but I can't locate a time stamp (https://blogs.fangraphs.com/instagraphs ... e-5-draft/)

• While I don't see a timestamp for the article being posted, Fangraphs tweeted the R5 projections article at 2:43 p.m. (https://twitter.com/fangraphs/status/12 ... 9819222016).

To me, that would indicate the article was up at at least 2:43 p.m. and Ken signed Payton more than an hour later. There's no way to determine if Ken saw the article before picking up Payton, however I think the ruling to have the teams release the signed players is valid because the process for signing players with projections is to go through the bidding process. Had Ken signed the player before the article was posted, I could see letting that one slide, but I don't see how we can given that the purpose of ZiPS bidding is to create a fair avenue for players to be signed.

For context, the other signee in dispute was Jim signing Trevor Megill at 7:30 p.m. Thursday, Dec. 12.

[Padres]

I first of all heartily agree that any player subject to the Rule 5 draft signed by an IBC team prior to his ZiPs projection being published should be considered a legal IBC signing. That is a must!

Second, I am not questioning Ken's integrity ... perhaps he didn't read the Fangraphs article before he signef Payton - but I did read the article before Ken signed Payton and Pat's notes above lend crendemce that it was in fact published before Ken signed him.

I believe that his signing Payton after the article was published (whether Ken read it or not) is reason enough to nullify the signing if we are going to be consistent with the (newly expanded) rationale and usage of this IBC rule.

[Cardinals]

Agree. I am not questioning whether or not Ken read the article prior to signing him, but it did come out before the signing. It cannot be legal.

[Guardians]

I wasn't aware of Jake's signings. We'll need to look at that. From the time stamps, he signed Machin and Jimenez around 1:15 p.m. the day of the draft. Based on the FG article being posted to Twitter at 2:43, it seems as if they were signed before the article. But I think Ken will lose his mind if we allow Jake's and not his. Do we just make a blanket rule that any players need to go through zips starting 11/1? I don't know if that's rational, either. Just thinking out loud.

viewtopic.php?f=1&t=12586

[Guardians]

Anyone else around?

[Astros]

I think going blanket rule is the safer bet in the long run

[Cardinals]

Part of me thinks to allow them because they were signed before, but I think it just goes against the spirit of the rule and what we ruled on Ken.

I'm a bit torn, but I think going blanket ZiPS bidding makes the most sense and follows most closely to what we've done.

[Padres]

I would allow signings up to the start of the winter meetings ... then apply the blanket rule.

[Guardians]

I think we need to allow pickups to a certain point. If we want to make it the winter meetings, which would include the R5 draft, fine. I think for the Jake/Ken situation, we nullify both signings and say both need to go through zips, since that's what it's for.

[Cardinals]

I think we need to allow pickups to a certain point. If we want to make it the winter meetings, which would include the R5 draft, fine. I think for the Jake/Ken situation, we nullify both signings and say both need to go through zips, since that's what it's for.

Agreed.

I think we need to modify what we're doing here in general with ZiPS bidding, Japanese/foreign players, etc for next offseason. There's been some loopholes and some older rules that are not great.

[Guardians]

Please post the ruling and mention we will be looking at more concrete rule changes to shore up the gaps