Greg Holland

[Deleted]

Ok, technically this isn't a trade issue, but it seems like a good spot to talk about it.

I was in negotiations with Mac (Braves) for Greg Holland, but something didn't strike me as being right concerning his franchising.

So Jared told Mac: "Ok, so Holland was a FA sign in our league. He broke the 50 IP barrier in 2011. So normally he would have PP-2015, since that's 4 years after breaking his limit. If you franchise him you will gain that contract, PP-15."

So here's the trade from Jared to the Braves at the end of 2012: www.fullcountbaseball.proboards.com/thread/5380/braves-rangers

So yeah, he was a free agent signing and not a PP player. He had one more year at $1.6M. When we franchise a free agent in this league, the rule (again, we need to clean up the rules; they're a mess) seems to be once a free agent signing (G. Holland in this instance) finishes his contract, he can be franchised but only at his MLB real life contract. Here's the rule section I'm reading: www.fullcountbaseball.proboards.com/thread/13/12-contract-expiration

G. Holland was a free agent signing and not a PP player. So explain to me how his new franchise contract is 14–15 at $0.4M and not 14: $4.675M, his real life contract?

Don't get me wrong: I'd love to have him at the cheap contract, but I want us all to be clear on what the rules are.

Thanks!

[Rangers GM (Jared)]

I may have misspoke when I told Mac the rule for PP. I'll look at it closer but I think Holland should have the 1 year deal.

[Deleted]

If you franchise a player they always assume their real life contract unless given a prospect tag...I don't see how you can get a player to assume the PP from a franchise tag.

[Angels GM (Jason)]

It looks like the same thing happened with Steve Cishek?

[Rangers GM (Jared)]

I confused our rule for this league with another I am in. It's my mistake. And yes I did same thing with Cishek.

[Deleted]

Can we work out a solution with Mac then? I could tell him, but I'd prefer a commish to say something... or come up with a compromise.

[Rangers GM (Jared)]

Yes. I do feel bad giving the new guy the wrong ruling. I have no issue taking the correct Cishek contract for myself which I'll do. But I did tell Mac the contract situation prior to using his tags. He might have gone a different way here if he'd had the correct information that I gave him incorrectly. Any problem with allowing this to stand PP-15? Set a bad precedent? It's a little different when an admin told him directly wrong info.

[Angels GM (Jason)]

I have no problem with that at all Jared. I was confused with that too, and thought I missed the rule. Should we look at changing it next year, or keep it the same?

[Deleted]

I personally would rather we get the contract right and give him like a 4th round compensation pick or something

[Deleted]

I'm going to detach myself from my trade interest and agree with Seth. Mac keeps asking me where I'm at. I'm just going to tell him there was a problem with a rules interpretation and we're still trying to figure it out.