Paying for former owner mistakes?

[Squint]

I have a couple of guys on the 40 man roster that the previous owner placed on there and I can't figure out what purpose it served at the time. None were (or are) Rule V eligible and none were called up to the BLB (prior to me taking over the team).

Most notably is Ton Schellevis ( Player Page). He isn't a franchise player, but he did have a great year at Cheyenne (A Ball).

Is there any way I can remove him from the 40 man roster without having to pass him through waivers? I waived and DFA'd him in game to remove him from the 40 man roster, moved him back on to Cheyenne, and then removed him from waivers. I no longer see him on waivers and he isn't on the 40 man roster anymore, but I'm concerned he may still be seen on the waiver wire by the rest of the league when I export.

The reason this is an issue is because I wanted to call up as many players as I could on September 1st to evaluate them and find out whether or not I should protect them in the expansion draft.

[Andrew]

I really hope it didn't let you do that because that's a pretty serious loophole if it did. You shouldn't be able to send him down until he clears waivers.

[Squint]

I did it.

He's not on my 40 man roster, he's back on Cheyenne, and I don't see him on waivers on my transaction page.

[Squint]

I really hope it didn't let you do that because that's a pretty serious loophole if it did. You shouldn't be able to send him down until he clears waivers.

And let's be clear.....I only removed him from the 40 man roster. He wasn't on my BLB roster, he was on Cheyenne.

[BradleyB]

I have done the same thing in the past because when we first started out, the computer put all kinds of random guys on my 40 man roster. Stu, if I remember correctly we discussed it at the time and the reasoning was that if the player didn't have a major league contract, he didn't need to clear waivers to be taken off the 40 man. I could be, and often am, wrong though.

[Andrew]

And let's be clear.....I only removed him from the 40 man roster. He wasn't on my BLB roster, he was on Cheyenne.

Doesn't matter, he still needs to clear waivers. I don't have time to write out a rule now, but this type of transaction won't be allowed.

[Squint]

And let's be clear.....I only removed him from the 40 man roster. He wasn't on my BLB roster, he was on Cheyenne.

Doesn't matter, he still needs to clear waivers. I don't have time to write out a rule now, but this type of transaction won't be allowed.

So, in answer to my question, I'm hosed because Weissenmouse didn't know what he was doing?

[BradleyB]

I'm hosed because Weissenmouse didn't know what he was doing?

To be honest, I'm surprised you don't say that more often. :D

[Andrew]

I asked in the beta forums about this issue. Brad is correct in saying that it only works for players with a minor league contract. As far as i know, they should still need to clear waivers but there might be some obscure rule that I don't know about.

As far as getting screwed by previous owners, that's part of taking over a team. I can't let people play by different rules.

[Whale]

Hell, I'm still screwed by some of my own decisions, and I'm the only one who owner this team. Basically, it sucks, but what are ya gonna do?

[Squint]

I asked in the beta forums about this issue. Brad is correct in saying that it only works for players with a minor league contract. As far as i know, they should still need to clear waivers but there might be some obscure rule that I don't know about.

As far as getting screwed by previous owners, that's part of taking over a team. I can't let people play by different rules.

I'm not complaining (trust me, I'm not) but people could've been doing this all along, correct?

Are you saying I can or can't do what I outlined above?

[Andrew]

I'm not complaining (trust me, I'm not) but people could've been doing this all along, correct?

Are you saying I can or can't do what I outlined above?

Yes, theoretically people could have been.

I'm saying technically you can do what you outlined above, but it is exploiting a loophole in the software. I have no real way of enforcing it so hopefully people will use the honor system and it will be fixed in a patch.

[Squint]

I'm not complaining (trust me, I'm not) but people could've been doing this all along, correct?

Are you saying I can or can't do what I outlined above?

Yes, theoretically people could have been.

I'm saying technically you can do what you outlined above, but it is exploiting a loophole in the software. I have no real way of enforcing it so hopefully people will use the honor system and it will be fixed in a patch.

LOL.....

Well, now that I've skylined Ton Schellevis everyone will be looking to see if he's on my 40 man roster.

Either I look like a dick for doing an it or an idiot for pointing it out.

Thanks Weissenmousse.

Why would anyone put a player in A ball on their 40 man roster??

[robster1225]

I'm not complaining (trust me, I'm not) but people could've been doing this all along, correct?

Are you saying I can or can't do what I outlined above?

Yes, theoretically people could have been.

I'm saying technically you can do what you outlined above, but it is exploiting a loophole in the software. I have no real way of enforcing it so hopefully people will use the honor system and it will be fixed in a patch.

LOL.....

Well, now that I've skylined Ton Schellevis everyone will be looking to see if he's on my 40 man roster.

Either I look like a *beep* for doing an it or an idiot for pointing it out.

Thanks Weissenmousse.

Why would anyone put a player in A ball on their 40 man roster??

As Brad said, the AI might have done it when the league started.

[mahoney2]

It sucks that he was on the 40 man and in Single A. I've been looking at for awhile today to try to figure out why he did it, but who knows.

Fundamentally this is an issue with how financials are handled and the "Major League" and "Minor League" contract. There are multiple reasons why the 40 man exists in MLB, but one of them is financial. If you watch the MLB transaction wire there's two different types of roster additions from the minors, "Purchased Contracts" and "Called Up". If the player isn't on the 40 man and is added and called up the MLB team purchases the contract from the minor league team, so if they are sent back down they play for free basically to the minor league team. This is also how rehab assignments work, can't send Schilling at $12mm a year to Single A and expect the Lowel Spinners not to go bankrupt.

Unfortunately this isn't the game handles it. I'm not quite sure if it is a programming shortcut/mistake or just the programmers do not have a complete understanding of actual rules, which is pretty realistic since they are pretty complicated.

There should not be any players on the 40 man roster who have "Minor League Contracts" they should be making the 40 man roster minimum which currently is $30,000 a year, which is a lot more than most minor league players make and significantly more than the $0 they make in OOTP. It's not a huge issue but 15 players at $30k is another $450k per year. Again this is not MLB, but when so many rules are exactly the same as MLB this is a pretty significant omission.

Props to Squint for calling it out though and making the issue come to the forefront. I hope no one takes advantage of this.