Jump to content
Jays Centre
  • Create Account

Dr. Dinger

Old-Timey Member
  • Posts

    24,234
  • Joined

  • Last visited

 Content Type 

Profiles

Toronto Blue Jays Videos

2025 Toronto Blue Jays Top Prospects Ranking

Toronto Blue Jays Free Agent & Trade Rumors, Notes, & Tidbits

Guides & Resources

2025 Toronto Blue Jays Draft Pick Tracker

News

Forums

Blogs

Events

Store

Downloads

Gallery

Everything posted by Dr. Dinger

  1. Your honour, we have an existing statute declaring that prospects must have played in AA before being added to an MLB roster or selected in the waiver draft. Your aforementioned stipulation should not be a matter of interpretation in light of existing precedents. I rest my case.
  2. I'm reading them right now. The Rule 5 Draft typically consists of MLB international signings, MLB players cut from keeper rosters, and unowned prospects (prospects may only be taken if they have played at AA or higher, see MiLB Roster Management; international signings that were subject to international spending limitations may not be taken in the Rule 5 Draft). --- That doesn't say that guys who weren't subject to spending limitations are automatically eligible.
  3. I don't believe Gurriel is eligible since he hasn't played at AA yet. I'm sure judges will rule him eligible, but I'll be a pedantic dick and say he doesn't technically meet the requirements for Rule 5.
  4. IMO he should be able to keep the name until he posts a .500 season. Or forced to keep the name. Either or.
  5. That player can get dropped in a month or two and no one will notice. Are you going to keep an eye on it? Because I sure won't.
  6. Yeah but my team is on the precipice of non-competitiveness, just stick it out a bit longer.
  7. And we are going to have to police it all year. It's stupid and sloppy.
  8. No he wouldn't be NA, because he wouldn't be in the database unless he were an active player.
  9. No, whoever it is cannot occupy an NA slot. That is giving him an extra roster spot.
  10. No it isn't. It's the league's prerogative to say you can't keep a player who isn't in the database. The league sets the precedent, not a singular owner.
  11. That's like giving him an extra roster spot. If you're going to do that then he should be forced to hold that player as long as he claims Ortiz and if he drops that player, he drops his claim also. It's a bad precedent to set IMO.
  12. This is pretty cut and dry, when your player retires you no longer own him, as no one can.
  13. I absolutely agree. You're doing it the right way. Trying to rebuild while remaining somewhat competitive just drags out the process.
  14. How so? We all knew that player was retiring for months and most of us scratched our heads that he would even bother to roll the dice on Ortiz changing his mind. As each day goes by it becomes more and more clear that it will not happen, in fact there's never been any indication that he was even considering it.
  15. Hell of a farm tho. But legit, you're gonna finish behind Boxy this year. Has that washed over you yet?
  16. Now, now... your pitching is also terrible.
  17. Welcome to P2F, a solid long-time poster.
  18. He's not in the database. What's to discuss?
  19. Can you upgrade an MiLB pick I'll actually use? If you can upgrade one of my top two picks at all, you can have the waiver pick.
  20. Fine you can have it for an MiLB pick of your choosing, if NJH is ok with that.
  21. Done, thx. I guess there's some utility in waiting and seeing what I might snag in the waiver draft, but I'm not a patient man.
×
×
  • Create New...