IBC

I sent Steve (Orioles) a quick PM reminding him to make cuts.

Thanks. I think tonight if any of the three haven't made the necessary cuts, we need to do it. It's getting out of hand with Bren in particular (every time I send out a reminder he's one of the ones who's over).

I'll text Steve when I get home from work to remind him

Any thoughts on which three of these to cut?

10-Bedrosian, Cam
10-Bridwell, Parker
10-Eibner, Brett
10-Klein, Daniel
10-Littlewood, Marcus
10-Machado, Manny
10-Marte, Luis
10-Ovando, Ariel
10-Ramos, Henry
9-Fields, Daniel
9-Fuentes, Reymond
9-Jacobs, Brandon
9-Von Rosenberg, Zachary
Becerra, Wilmer
0-Correa, Jonathan
0-Federowicz, Tim
0-Lotzkar, Kyle
0-Puello, Cesar
0-Robertson, Tyler
0-Rodriguez, Yorman

Same question, which three:

Below, Duane
Carmona, Fausto
Carpenter, David
Castro, Jason
De Los Santos, Fautino
Liddi, Alex
Martinez, Cristhian
Mortenson, Clayton
Moskos, Danny
Mujica, Edward
Navarro, Dioner
Pestano, Vinnie
Saunders, Joe
Schafer, Jordan
Snider, Travis
Thompson, Rich
10-Grimm, Justin
10-Kingham, Nicholas
10-Lindsey, Taylor
10-Rodriguez, Luigi
10-Sanchez, Angel
10-Schrader, Clayton
9-Jenkins, Stephen
9-Thompson, Trayce
9-Whitenack, Robert
0-Bundy, Robert
0-Joseph, Corban
0-Martinez Mesa, Fabio
0-Ortega, Rafael
0-Perez, Luis
0-Verdugo, Ryan

Bren made his cuts, so we just have to do Detroit's.

Rangers wrote:Bren made his cuts, so we just have to do Detroit's.

We should keep 10 draftees so the roster is legal ... so I would say the last three players he signed that were not among the 10 players in draftee status - if he has 11 draftees then the last draftee and 2 non-draftees if he is 3 over ...

WhiteSox wrote:We should keep 10 draftees so the roster is legal ... so I would say the last three players he signed that were not among the 10 players in draftee status - if he has 11 draftees then the last draftee and 2 non-draftees if he is 3 over ...

Sounds like a good plan, that way if we need to do it in the future we can be consistent.

The only issue that I'd take is that I wouldn't think that we'd want to drop someone who was a really good signing, even if they were recent. The reason is that, if we're to the point that we have to drop players for the GM, he's not doing his job and we're not too far from replacing him. Often that sort of situation is accompanied by a roster in disrepair, so we wouldn't want to further set back the next person.

We should be as consistent as we can and certainly not malicious, but I think there's room for our discretion.

Rangers wrote:The only issue that I'd take is that I wouldn't think that we'd want to drop someone who was a really good signing, even if they were recent. The reason is that, if we're to the point that we have to drop players for the GM, he's not doing his job and we're not too far from replacing him. Often that sort of situation is accompanied by a roster in disrepair, so we wouldn't want to further set back the next person.

We should be as consistent as we can and certainly not malicious, but I think there's room for our discretion.

I have no problem with your logic here and therefore would suggest we consider when looking at the players under consideration to be cut ... but I do strongly belive we should not create a roster out of sync with our rules and thus should maintain 10 draftees.

WhiteSox wrote:

Rangers wrote:The only issue that I'd take is that I wouldn't think that we'd want to drop someone who was a really good signing, even if they were recent. The reason is that, if we're to the point that we have to drop players for the GM, he's not doing his job and we're not too far from replacing him. Often that sort of situation is accompanied by a roster in disrepair, so we wouldn't want to further set back the next person.

We should be as consistent as we can and certainly not malicious, but I think there's room for our discretion.

I have no problem with your logic here and therefore would suggest we consider when looking at the players under consideration to be cut ... but I do strongly belive we should not create a roster out of sync with our rules and thus should maintain 10 draftees.

Definitely

Best I can tell 10-Schrader, Below, and 10-Rodriguez are the last three Tiger signings that are still on the team.

Reds wrote:Best I can tell 10-Schrader, Below, and 10-Rodriguez are the last three Tiger signings that are still on the team.

Those three look good to me. He is still fine as far as his draft roster. I've released those three for him.

This is obviously a pretty big strike against Jeff if we have to discuss him continuing as a GM at some point.

yeah, sorry to be late to chime in here, but that works perfectly fine for me.

And also agree, he's not endearing himself here. Both Pat G and Nate have expressed interest in the past month in returning to the league. I know we've discussed Houston ad nauseam, but Detroit has done really nothing except draft since joining the league...and hasn't managed to follow the rules and keep his roster legal.

Yeah I swapped emails throughout the day yesterday with Pat about possibly returning and he knows that it would be a long rebuilding process and says he's up for it. Both of them left the league because they didn't have time, not for any other reason, so I'd say clear the dead weight and bring them back

Cardinals wrote:Yeah I swapped emails throughout the day yesterday with Pat about possibly returning and he knows that it would be a long rebuilding process and says he's up for it. Both of them left the league because they didn't have time, not for any other reason, so I'd say clear the dead weight and bring them back

I definitely think we should try to find something for Pat, particularly given that Jeff isn't participating at a minimum level.

Now that Dan has gone through the entire offseason, preseason seems like a bad time to do anything there, so I kind of think that we should give him this season to show some progress with his roster (unless he trades one of the top couple picks for a shiny nickel again, or something like that). Same goes for Kelly.

If Nate would be fully participating, it would obviously be good to have him back. I'd give him a team without hesitation if there is an opening, but I'd be a little less motivated about actively looking for a spot for him than Pat.

With Dan doing all the draft work and stuff, as JP pointed out to me a minute ago, it isn't right to get rid of him now. But I say we put him on double secret probation for this year and the next major screwup, he's done. I don't have an issue with Kelly as much, he's got some good prospects and seems to finally be building toward something

I really don't see Kelly compiling anything in particular aside from some recognizable prospects, but we can look again after the season. At least he kept a high draft pick and got Rendon. Now let's see if he doesn't fritter him away.

Agreed on Dan needing a chance to stay. It'd be totally lame to boot him after he put a lot of effort into the draft... at least I hope he put a lot of effort in. Either way, it's a bad time to remove Dan. If he does start screwing up majorly with trades, then yeah, time to go.

Hay, on the other hand, has done nothing. I'd be on board with removing him and bringing Pat back. Just depends how you guys feel about that.

Pirates wrote:Hay, on the other hand, has done nothing. I'd be on board with removing him and bringing Pat back. Just depends how you guys feel about that.

I'd vote in favor of that if Pat is ready to go.

Form how he talked in the emails yesterday it sounds to me like he's ready

Rangers wrote:I'd vote in favor of that if Pat is ready to go.

As would I.

should we go ahead and take an official vote, or do you want me to make sure pat is ready?

If we are going to replace him we should've let Pat make the cuts we just made. Let's get a full vote.

Reds wrote:If we are going to replace him we should've let Pat make the cuts we just made. Let's get a full vote.

In light of this, I backed out all three cuts. If we're adding Pat imminently, he might as well make these decisions. We'll just let him know he needs to cut three right off the bat.