So, basically...

[Admin]

The MiLB rule will stand. I believe it is working. The only player of consequence that will be lost is Jennings. Poor seasons and injuries play a part, its just blind luck then.
I also understand the fun of drafting/trading for a minor guy and watching his progress up to the majors(Heyward+).
In this regard the rule will be modified by adding the "Franchise Tag" to only 1 player on a minor league roster. Specifics will be announced in a bit as I've been preoccupied with other matters. But you'll be able to hang onto 1 player and not lose him to MiLB free agency.
This will take effect in January after the MiLB draft.
One year will be subtracted from all minors when I finalize everyones roster. Those reaching 0 are lost to MiLB free agency.

[Deleted]

I am glad to see the addition of a franchise tag.

[Deleted]

a step in the right direction i feel. just thinking ahead, will the tag be able to be switched from year to year??

[Deleted]

In my opinion, a franchise tag should stay with a player until

1) he reaches the majors

or

2) the owner cuts him from the minor league roster

If it bounces around from player to player, it seems like a way to avoid the rule.

[Deleted]

In my opinion, none of the currently drafted players should be eligible for the franchise tag. That would amount to applying a new rule retroactively.

[Admin]

Milw, I understand your concern and position on this subject. You and I and perhaps some others understood the rule as is.
From the list I compiled and posted really only 2, IMHO, will benefit.(Moose and Scheppers). Looking forward from there and its a total crapshoot, most will never amount to anything. It really doesnt matter with players having 3 years left, as of now. So the easiest and simplest way(my favorite) is to just slap a franchise tag on 1 player per team. Keeping track of who is eligible and who isnt after the next draft....well since I do all of the 'bookkeeping', transactions, that would be yet another thing to do. dont think so.
There will still be some player movement and thats what we want for the league.
The details havent been worked out yet. I/we have time to decide how we want to go on this issue.

[Deleted]

I just don't understand why those of us who followed the rule properly are effectively being penalized because others did not understand it and never asked for any clarification. I've never been in a league where the I was put at a disadvantage for following the rules.
As for your bookkeeping issue, put a # in front of all players currently drafted and you can tell at a glance which players were drafted under which rule.

[ex-Pittsburgh Pirates]

To address Milwaukee's concerns...I think there were more people following the 'incorrect' interpretation of the rules than the correct interpretation. Frankly, there was nothing in the rules to make us think otherwise, so we felt no need to ask for clarification. I'm sorry if you would have drafted differently. The rest of us would have as well.

[Deleted]

Right, but I was operating under the correct definition of the rule as confirmed by the commish. Now, I'm going to be the one put at a disadvantage. In what way does that seem fair to you?

[ex-Pittsburgh Pirates]

I agree that it isn't completely fair. It's a compromise. It also doesn't seem fair for the several other teams that operated under the other rule assumption.

I completely understand your argument. But unless someone points out to me (and it's not going to happen) where we were clearly not following the rule as written, then I don't think you are being treated any less fairly then everyone else. You just happened to read the rule the same way as the commish (or you were fortunate enough to not understand the rule and asked the commish for guidance.)

[Deleted]

Nothing that you can say will make me understand why I am put at a disadvantage for understanding and applying the rules properly. I was right - you were wrong, but I am forced into a compromise that is not only put in place against my wishes, but applied retroactively.

If you want to add a franchise tag, it should only apply to those players drafted in the future, not those already drafted.

[Deleted]

I'd just like to hear your disadvantage Milwaukee? We, myself included, never asked for clarification for the same reason you didn't. We interpreted it in a way we believed to be correct.

[Deleted]

My disadvantage is that I rarely considered drafting high-school players, because under ordinary circumstances they were not likely to qualify as major league players (50 IP or 150 AB) before the maximum 5 controlling years ran out. If I knew we were going to franchise players, I could have chosen at least one younger and more talented player each year than I did. Those of you who didn't understand the rules correctly have a drafted younger and in most cases more talented players than I did - and now you will get to franchise one of those players for each of the next four years before we are again on a level playing field.

That's what I get for not whining to the commish sooner.

You were wrong, didn't ask for any clarification, but refuse to take responsibility for your choices.

[Minnesota Twins]

I like the idea of a franchise tag. At least we all are on the same page now.

[Deleted]

I don't mind the franchise tag, it just can't be applied to players already drafted.