After reading various posts on the free agency topic, it is obvious there are actually two themes at hand - free agency, and free movement ie "release me".
As a board member who has made no secret of my support for "paid agency", my compromise is easy. NO manager will Ever be able to tell a ballplayer in this league, after the season, that he can't play somewhere else. The rules already in place as far as number of players that can go to a particular team etc, etc are enough.
This is, after all America - I don't need anymore big brother in my life.
Jonny Martin
PS - I echo Ralph Caputos' comments. Playing against friends and former teamates is great fun. That's why Ralph left the Champion Silver Marlins. I left the same Championchip team to play with Jim Jordan, and 75 year old" Red " on the Braves, left again to play with the "expansion" Cubs of Dennis Maille and all those Spanish speaking cubbies. In the 45's, I'm joining the "Thunder"of Rich Garbarino. Of course with big brother Teddy, and Ronnie Mazz, there may be some thunder this year.
PSS - Managers - you build teams with a CORE group of guys that would do anything for each other, and who's biggest fear is letting their teammates down on the field.
I like how John C says, "Despite a record of 3 and 15 and a torn hamstring, I had a ton of fun," and Ray Jdem, I loved that spac rock concert analogy, did you eat the brown acid? Last year was my rookie year and they told me right up front that these guys in our league are fierce. They were absolutely right: during the 24 games I played for 5 different teams, I can remember being nervous every time I got on the field. I didn't want to mess up. For some reason, God was watching over me, 'cause I made no errors and only struck out once all season (a Pete Westfall victim). He buried 11 batters that day, so I don't feel that bad. My last official at bat as a Yankee against the Dodgers in New Scotland, we were tied 5-5 and I drove in the winning run. My confidence level was immediately catapulted into a feeling that I was finally hanging with the big dogs. Guys like Todd Baldwin, Eppy, Big Steve Captain Crunch, Wayne's World, etc. I mean, these guys are some of the best. Mike Hart was our mystical guru through this winter in calling about 10 practices at All Stars in Latham, where we had the gauntlet of players from hall of famers all the way down to rookies practicing together, and that in itself is a confidence booster. It's cool how now, when I make a post, it says "veteran player". I just want all the players that I've played with and against to know that it is a privilege to be on the same field with you guys. I think an MVP hall of famer once said, "This ain't the major leagues, this league is for each and every player that pays his way." That about sums it up.
Can't wait to get hit by a pitch in 2009. Cannon/Shaskys 35
These guys capture the sentiment of what I have been trying to say. I want to eliminate the possibilities of a manager saying no to a waiver in the off season. I really feel strongly that, if a player comes to a manager and says that he wants to play elsewhere next season, that the manager should have zero options but to sign that release. The only reason for the off season waiver should be to make sure that manager that is losing a player knows about it in time to replace that player.
I understand the feelings of my fellow managers in regards to not wanting players to be able to leave just to be on a better team, but who are we to tell them "no". Just imagine this scenario: A top-notch player asks his manager for a release because he has a personality conflict with said manager. The manager refuses to give that player a release because he knows that losing that player, will not only hurt his team, but will improve any competitors team that he joins. This player now has two options: 1) Stay with the team that he doesn't want to be on, or 2) Sit out a complete season in order to be a free agent. I'm not naming any names, but this scenario has already played itself out more than once. We need to make whatever changes are necessary to make sure that it doesn't continue to happen. Maybe a review of denied waivers by the board is the answer. I don't know, but we need to do something.
It is my understanding that the only reason a manager could deny a player his release was if said player still owed money to the manager.
If a player is in good standing (financially speaking) with the manager and wants to go play for someone else then he should get his release immediately.
As a manager for 9 years my take is; if one of my players wants to leave it is probably one of three things:
1) we have a personality conflict (he is obviously an idiot if he cannot get along with me; LOL) 2) he just wants to go play with some buddies on another team 3) he is not getting what he feels is enough playing time. (he probably sucks; LOL)
I am not his keeper and would never say no to anyone if they wanted a release. I even released a guy who to this day owes me $150. With that money maybe I could have bribed Jonny Martin to come play for me.
I have never denied anyone from moving and probably never would, but in that same vein, we can't let a team be torn apart by having 3 or more guys leave - unless the manager/GM and the commisioner decides that it's okay.
I watch teams now trying to cope with the personnel loses under the current system having a hard time recruiting and getting better. I can't imagine trying to find players if I lost 6 guys in one big swoop.
Nobody is saying that players are "stuck' on a team - we see guys moving all the time. Ralph proves that point. Maybe I've been blind, but I have not seen ANYBODY leave the league because they couldn't play with their "friends". We just have a safeguard for how much punishment a team has to take because they did the hard work of finding players and now have to do all over again. And if a manager is bad, the discontent on his team would tell him it was time to make a change at the top.
And don't think I advocate this so that, as a manager, I can "control" these guys. It has nothing to do with that. Hell, I would have no problem that the commissioner and/or board wanted to have the ability to "fire" a manager if he was found to be counter-productive or his team petitioned it to do so.
Totally open free agency would be too much. Leave it the way it is.
Everyone has good points about the free agency deal. I for one, had a player thinking of playing with another club,and I discussed it with that player. He told me that he was approached by a teams player about changing clubs, that's something I don't want to get into. NO ONE should be soliciting other teams players, and only if the player is thinking of jumping teams on his own. In addition, getting back to this situation, the player was thinking that I was not coming back, and that my club was talking about disbanding, which was not the case at all, and don't know who or how my player was informed of this. Now, this player is eagerly ready to play with my club in 2009, and even told me yesterday at a local coffee establishment, he even want's to play for me next year as long as I'm manager, so if anyone has any doubts, please ask him personally. So, now you have the story, case closed!!! I disagree about managers not having a say in anything, that's ......... Why not?? We have to deal with a lot of crap, and all managers know what I mean, lot's of issues during the season, and some with players who have attitudes, amd some whom feel they are more talented than they really are, in there own minds!!! Have to stroke others during the season, while you are trying to concentrate on playing on the field yourself, along with making moves during the game. I only came forward to manage last year because no one else wants to step to the plate!!! Now it's year two, oh boy!! Free agency needs to stay, and you just can't have guys going wherever they want to go, and that usually means ONLY to the top dogs, and everyone's a friend, as long as they can play at a high level. Rules and regulations are a part of any organization, so let's get this thing figured out.
The funny thing is that if a marginal player wanted to leave a team to be with friends or for that matter, any reason - despite moving up to a better team - there would be no discussion. If a player wants to leave a team, he should be required to have a discussion with the manager. After discussion, he should be able to determine his own fate. If I remember, the rule of three had to do with disbanded teams or players leaving enmass which in and of itself is telling of a major problem on a team... although I've seen players moving around a bit, it has never been a problem so I'm not sure why it has become such a big problem now...
When a player signs a registration form, he has to stay with that team for at least three years. He then becomes an unrestricted free agent. The form should indicate that as well so there is no misunderstanding. So, basically, players are free to go wherever that want every three years providing said players are members in good standing.
OR, if a player wants to join his "friend,'' then the "friend'' on the better team has to join the ''friend'' on the weaker team. They can then be together. I'm sure the manager of the weaker team can find a roster spot.
Almost every point that has been made is valid. It's a tough issue. So, those options may be a compromise - or perhaps an offshoot of some type. I firmly believe that if we have unrestricted free agency for every player every year, then we won't have a division like we did in the 37s last year. It's a helluva division when the 10th seed reaches the finals. (If it ain't broke, don't fix it)!
Whatever we do, we absolutely, positively MUST prevent more than 2 players from any one team leaving in the same year. I just can't fathom having three or more players from one team asking to join their "friend(s)'' on another team in the same season. Let's at least give our managers some protection.
I'd almost like to have a tampering-type of rule, too, but there would be no way to legislate it.
And then there is this ... "but what if a player and manager just don't get along?'' Then by mutual agreement, the player can leave. That's how we got Steve Lounello from the Pirates. Player/manager had a disagreement six games into the season, so the player bolted and asked for his release which the manager gladly granted.
Answering another question: It's already in the rules that any player who isn't granted his request to be released can appeal to the board.
I left the Knights/Fordians (now White Sox), four years ago because the Yankees were going to fold if they didn't find anyone to take over the team. I asked our manager at the time if I could go, and he gave me his blessing. I also took two players with me that I had recruited to play on the Fordians. Again, I asked the manager before asking the two players if they wanted to follow me. Had the manager said no, I would have had to recruit a little more to fill out the roster. One of the players is truely one of my best friends - in each other's weddings and we've known each other since Little League. I believe that's how we characterize "friends.''
Tom Maney is a friend. We play darts in the off-season and work out together before the season starts. I threw a lot with him when he decided to go lefty. I've given him some baseball gear and he's given me some as well. (Love that glove T!!!) But I never asked if he wanted to join the Giants or Hornets. Not that he would have, but the conversation never came up. So, "friends'' don't always have to play with "friends.'' Many of the guys are right: "friends'' is a guise, and rarely, if ever, has a "friend'' from a good team asked to go play with a "friend'' on a bad team.
As a board member, I think our members should know where each of us stands. So, if the options remain (a) "total free agency'' or (b) keeping the three-player limit, then three-player limit gets my vote. But I'm always willing to listen to compromises/suggestions.
Jim, you refer to a "friend" asking a "friend" to play on his team. What you didn't refer to is a "friend" wanting to play on his "friend's" team without being asked. I believe that happens more than your scenario... I also believe people see teams that they think they may just fit into better - even without that mythical "friend." There are some teams that just seem to have more fun and others that seem to have on the field drama every week. not every player wants to be hasseled with the drama and just wants to play ball... a three year contract? what's next, agents? how about sponsors who pay money for players? let's call a spade a spade - no manager is going to go through any extraordinary efforts to get a marginal player to stay if he wants to leave... so do we want to start to identify "franchise" players that are protected? we can make this as complicated as we want... the bottom line is that we pay our own money to play... although our league is competitive, I believe most of us play first, to have fun. The parity we have attained has not been diminished because of people switching teams. So I'll repeat my question - having spent 21 years in this league, why has this become such a big problem all of a sudden?
Hey Dennis, A volcano erupted in Italy. All of a sudden there is a problem. Problems happen even though they haven't happened in a long time. I like the discussion. Good piece by Dr. K. I see your point, K, especially when it comes to more than one player leaving.
The rule was put in there at some point in time, for a reason. Does anyone remember what the reason was? And it was put in the rules way before the league grew to what it is now - 5 divisions and about 48+ teams. And, a great website.
Personally, I think it would be a great experience to play wherever, whenever. I would have like to played on the same team as T. Maney, M. Girard, Crafty, Fitzy, Dabs, Shooky, Carlos, Ralph C., The Martins.....and the list goes on. I've been lucky to have played on teams with awesome people. The fact of the matter is that I counted on those guys to be there, and they depended on me..... before I broke down. Now its a different story, they'd give me a release before I could get the words out.
I say all that to get to this... Player movement is good... and I don't hold it against anyone... especially if there is a player/manager conflict. Nobody wants to keep guys from playing, but just consider how it is affecting the team you are leaving is all. Everyone wants to win a championship, but some might end up like Marino, and Ewing.
I think this league is great, and I thank the guys who started it, and the guys that keep it going. I like the rule as it is, just use common sense and courtesy when testing it out.
releases are good , I have released every player that asked. Ralph Caputo, Ted Martin, Jon Martin, Tom Maney, Doug Zmyewski, Todd Baldwin, amoung them. I never ask why they go. they seem to be happy on their new teams. I still play on tournament teams with them. and then again problems arise not with release denial...so much, since i can remember only 2 releases denied in 19 years. ...but when teams want to stay intact when they move up a divsion and already have older players playing on existing teams. with the free agent limit of three, those "older" players may have to sit in order to freely join this new but re-formed franchise.
with single players they need to be more aware of the movement rules and they still have the protest to the board if they have a managers denial of release. I can't recall one of those.
I suggest we focus on the second problematic area and perhaps engineer the rule to a compromise so these "older" players mentioned above can just seamlessly move to their old "younger" team as they move up if they want. I know we angst over the 35 O's and Cubs and Giants , the 55 Yankees and others I imagine, but they had to jump thru hoops to get their teams together. and their solid members. granted almost always stronger than the existing teams in thier divisions. May be not a question of total scrapping here but more fine tuning. Ed the rule was in put in place to foster divison and team order and stability later refined to prevent super team formation and the raiding of existing teams for whatever reason. has it worked...to some degree; have players not moved as a result ...perhaps those players need to speak up. board member '09 league member since '91. JReel
Ralphie - despite the volcanoes in Italy, the hurricanes in Texas and floods out west, there has always been player movement - what happened to you is an excellent case in point. It wasn't a problem - see above JR note... so I'll repeat my statement -nothwithstanding the volcanos in Italy - why has this become a big problem all of a sudden? Players need to talk to their managers and if there is a problem work it out - if not, let the player play ball and enjoy himself...
