Fisher

[Mariners GM (Phil)]

so i am fine with the Whalen decision but I realized that both myself and the Pirates have Derek fisher in our minors. Alex says the Pirates drafted him in 2011, i traded for him from the Indians about a month ago. how should we work this out?

[Astros GM (Will)]

I don't know how they did the rules in 2011, but it appears that Derek Fisher (the same one) went unsigned by the Texas Rangers after being drafted in the 6th round.

Under the current rules, the Pirates would not have been allowed to draft Fisher.

[Mariners GM (Phil)]

So how did he get on the Indians?

[Pirates GM (Max)]

Well this sucks. I have owned him since I joined the league (wasn't here to draft him in 2011 but have had him since I've been here for a few years)

[Guardians GM (Thomas)]

He was on my roster when I took over the team last year.

[Rockies GM (Alex)]

The rules were different back in 2011, teams could draft players that weren't on teams. That was the only year we did things like that (sorry guys, first year doing this). So he technically belongs to the Pirates... but the reason for the mistake is understood. Should we just give Seattle a compensation pick? Perhaps in Round A being Fisher is a top prospect... or Round B?

[Mariners GM (Phil)]

Ugh losing a top 100 for even a late 1st round pick sounds like getting ripped off

[Braves GM (Jared)]

Although I agree, I don't know a better solution.

[Astros GM (Will)]

I was going to suggest giving the Mariners the same pick slot as a fair way of giving direct compensation. The pick was the 35th overall pick (Round 2, Pick 3). I think a Comp A pick is the fairest way to go about it though. Maybe slot him at the beginning of the Comp A picks so he gets pick 31?

[Rockies GM (Alex)]

Aug 8, 2016 16:53:24 GMT -5 Astros GM (Will) said:

I was going to suggest giving the Mariners the same pick slot as a fair way of giving direct compensation. The pick was the 35th overall pick (Round 2, Pick 3). I think a Comp A pick is the fairest way to go about it though. Maybe slot him at the beginning of the Comp A picks so he gets pick 31?

I wouldn't be opposed to this?  Being he was selected there... it's probably the most fair thing to do?

[Angels GM (Derrick)]

Alex is correct, back in 2011 we held our draft before the real life mlb draft signing deadline. Meaning there were a couple players whom were drafted that ended up not signing. To resolve this problem we decided to no longer permit the drafting of unsigned players, and to reward compensation picks to those teams that were effected.

PIT did in fact draft Fisher with the 1st pick in round 5, they were therefore awarded a compensation pick in the same spot(5/1) in the 2012 draft. The PIT owner at the time subsequently chose to trade said compensation pick to CLE prior to our 2012 draft. baseknock.proboards.com/thread/3098/pirates-indians

CLE then drafted Fisher legitimately in our 2014 draft.

So to sum everything up:
-PIT does not own Fisher, and the compensation pick for him not signing was already awarded back in 2012. Fisher should have been removed from their roster once the compensation pick was awarded.
-CLE did own Fisher, they drafted him legitimately back in 2014. They then traded the legitimately owned Fisher to SEA.
-SEA now owns Fisher.

[Mariners GM (Phil)]

Woah, so de we go with the comp pick for Pittsburgh

[Pirates GM (Max)]

Wait, what? I have owned Fisher since I got here. I got here after the 2012 season and never once was I told about any of this. Derek Fisher was on my roster. He has always been on the Google Doc roster as well (which is what we use as the official roster for the league, mind you). How the hell would I know? I would have appreciated some kind of notification or knowledge of this before the guy became a legitamite top 100 prospect. I've held off trading him because I like him a lot, and now this?

[Rockies GM (Alex)]

Aug 9, 2016 10:16:14 GMT -5 Pirates GM (Max) said:

Wait, what? I have owned Fisher since I got here. I got here after the 2012 season and never once was I told about any of this. Derek Fisher was on my roster. He has always been on the Google Doc roster as well (which is what we use as the official roster for the league, mind you). How the hell would I know? I would have appreciated some kind of notification or knowledge of this before the guy became a legitamite top 100 prospect. I've held off trading him because I like him a lot, and now this?

Max... there's thousands of players that I'm trying to keep track of on the Google Doc roster.  I know a notification would have been great, but there was no knowledge of this.  It's a good thing you didn't trade him, because it's prevented a lot of compensation that would have needed to be awarded if he had been moved around.  

I would compensate you with a draft pick, but as Derrick pointed out, there already was draft pick compensation back in 2012, which the Pirates used as part of a deal to acquire Dellin Betances (a then elite prospect), Adam Dunn (a solid first baseman), and Kevin Gausman (2012 pick 1.3).  Gausman was then shipped to Oakland in the summer of 2014 as part of a large deal to acquire star Evan Longoria.  

[Pirates GM (Max)]

That's all well and good, but I have had this guy for almost 4 years now and nothing has been said to me. I have intentionally kept him and not dealt him in certain trade talks because I want him and like him. You're just going to take him away now when he is a top 100 prospect when you had 4 years to figure out "hey, he doesn't belong".

I don't see how I should be held accountable for someone else's mistake. I understand mistakes happen. I do the Master for another league like this, but when I make a mistake, it's on my head. If this was something that happened for a few months and it was found out, I would understand. But 4 years? Are you serious? And now you're gonna tell me some 5th round pick from 3 years ago is supposed to be adequate comp for a guy I could have traded and gotten a helluva a lot for, or at least SOMETHING for, or included in bigger deals... That's right, it is fortunate I didn't trade him for everyone else, but sucks for me because since I expressly kept him I get screwed.

There are 10 recently drafted prospects ranked ahead of Fisher in MLB.com's midseason update. I'd think the 11th pick in the upcoming draft is fair compensation for him since, according to the experts, that's where he would rank.

[Braves GM (Jared)]

That's a strong argument, but don't you think that if someone realized there was a mistake over the past 4 years, we would have said something? It's not like anyone held off on telling you for four year, or that we just let it slide for that long. Trust me, if someone had noticed, something would have been said.

Now, I like your argument for the 11th overall pick. That's a very reasonable request and I vote that the 11th overall pick should be given to you as compensation.

[Rockies GM (Alex)]

I'm not really sure I agree with giving the Pirates the 11th overall pick in the draft. The team has already been compensated... and we're not reversing the trades that have been made with the players he got as a result of being compensated? That seems like a lot to give a team.

What we do with all other prospects in this situation is give the team the pick that they took the player, which would be in the 5th round just like we gave to the Pirates years ago. It would be unfair to other teams who have not been given compensation picks based on how good the prospect they took that was owned was.

[Braves GM (Jared)]

Somehow I skipped what Derrick had written. So Pitt (the team, not necessarily Max) had the benefit of the 5th round comp pick for the previous 4 years, resulting in multiple trades and players. I didn't realize Pitt had already been compensated. Pitt as an organization was able to use the compensation, and therefore, I agree that no extra comp pick should be given.

Max, you were here in 2014, and it looks like you were active in the draft. Just like the rest of us, you didn't realize that CLE drafted your player. If you, or any of us, would have noticed, things would have been resolved before he turned into a legitimate prospect.

[Pirates GM (Max)]

Aug 10, 2016 10:29:08 GMT -5 Braves GM (Jared) said:

Somehow I skipped what Derrick had written. So Pitt (the team, not necessarily Max) had the benefit of the 5th round comp pick for the previous 4 years, resulting in multiple trades and players. I didn't realize Pitt had already been compensated. Pitt as an organization was able to use the compensation, and therefore, I agree that no extra comp pick should be given.

Max, you were here in 2014, and it looks like you were active in the draft. Just like the rest of us, you didn't realize that CLE drafted your player. If you, or any of us, would have noticed, things would have been resolved before he turned into a legitimate prospect.

I didn't follow every pick and every everything that happened (and no one really should). Even if I did see the pick or whatever, "Derek Fisher" isn't exactly an uncommon name. I don't know whether I did or not, but basically what I'm saying is that's not a reasonable argument.

And I realize no one intentionally withheld the info from me. But how is a that measly 5th round pick supposed to be accurate compensation? Like I said, had this issue been resolved way back when it was first an issue then yes that would make sense. But for 5 years it went on and now he is a legitamite prospect and I get nothing? I'm sorry, but the little 5th round pick that I "benefitted" from is an entirely replaceable and dime-a-dozen asset. It's very reasonable to believe that there are dozens of other ways a trade could have been done not involving that pick, and in the long run the pick became an asset with little value. All this time, for 5 years, I've been told that I had an asset which has steadily increasing value. It's obviously my prerogative whether to keep or trade said asset. I chose to keep it, and because I did that in combination with this entire fiasco of owned or not owned, I get the short end of the stick. My point is, I could have traded this guy at any point in the past 5 years and gotten something valuable back. Instead, I kept him and now not only do I lose out on all the steadily increasing value I could have received, but I get nothing in return. What the franchise got 5 years ago isn't close to adequate comp considering what the player is worth now and has been worth at the various points at which I could have traded him since I was under the impression he is on my roster.

Look, I don't want this to be some massive thing. But I feel I am owed something at the very least similar in value to Fisher since at any point I could have dealt him and in all likelihood it would've gone unbeknownst to everyone.

[Orioles GM (Michael)]

Aug 10, 2016 23:15:39 GMT -5 Pirates GM (Max) said:

Aug 10, 2016 10:29:08 GMT -5 Braves GM (Jared) said:

Somehow I skipped what Derrick had written. So Pitt (the team, not necessarily Max) had the benefit of the 5th round comp pick for the previous 4 years, resulting in multiple trades and players. I didn't realize Pitt had already been compensated. Pitt as an organization was able to use the compensation, and therefore, I agree that no extra comp pick should be given.

Max, you were here in 2014, and it looks like you were active in the draft. Just like the rest of us, you didn't realize that CLE drafted your player. If you, or any of us, would have noticed, things would have been resolved before he turned into a legitimate prospect.

I didn't follow every pick and every everything that happened (and no one really should). Even if I did see the pick or whatever, "Derek Fisher" isn't exactly an uncommon name. I don't know whether I did or not, but basically what I'm saying is that's not a reasonable argument.

And I realize no one intentionally withheld the info from me. But how is a that measly 5th round pick supposed to be accurate compensation? Like I said, had this issue been resolved way back when it was first an issue then yes that would make sense. But for 5 years it went on and now he is a legitamite prospect and I get nothing? I'm sorry, but the little 5th round pick that I "benefitted" from is an entirely replaceable and dime-a-dozen asset. It's very reasonable to believe that there are dozens of other ways a trade could have been done not involving that pick, and in the long run the pick became an asset with little value. All this time, for 5 years, I've been told that I had an asset which has steadily increasing value. It's obviously my prerogative whether to keep or trade said asset. I chose to keep it, and because I did that in combination with this entire fiasco of owned or not owned, I get the short end of the stick. My point is, I could have traded this guy at any point in the past 5 years and gotten something valuable back. Instead, I kept him and now not only do I lose out on all the steadily increasing value I could have received, but I get nothing in return. What the franchise got 5 years ago isn't close to adequate comp considering what the player is worth now and has been worth at the various points at which I could have traded him since I was under the impression he is on my roster.

Look, I don't want this to be some massive thing. But I feel I am owed something at the very least similar in value to Fisher since at any point I could have dealt him and in all likelihood it would've gone unbeknownst to everyone.

Just for the sake of playing devil's advocate, Max, what would you feel is fair compensation? I don't ask that with any negative tone, I'm genuinely asking in hopes maybe we could reach a resolution that works for everyone.

[Mariners GM (Phil)]

Well he said in his response he wanted the 11th pick, my question would be why should he get more compensation than he apparently has already gotten and like I think Alex said when Cleveland drafted fisher in 2014 how come Max never spoke up and said that fisher was on his roster. I'm not trying to disrespect Max but the arguments don't make sense. I would have been compensated because I traded for Fisher but Pittsburgh drafted him then he never signed so they got another pick they used to aquire a star closer. These arguements just don't really make sense

[Jerry (Former Yankees GM)]

Let's be like Solomon, cut the baby in half and give half to each.
Put the player in FA as both feel they are being cheated and give both a compensation pick. Don't know which will get to pick first tho...

[Mariners GM (Phil)]

I'm just confused on Max's arguement

[Deleted]

Aug 11, 2016 18:47:10 GMT -5 Jerry (Former Yankees GM) said:

Let's be like Solomon, cut the baby in half and give half to each.
Put the player in FA as both feel they are being cheated and give both a compensation pick. Don't know which will get to pick first tho...

A great way to break ties is to have a 1 on 1 bowling match

[Pirates GM (Max)]

Aug 11, 2016 20:07:25 GMT -5 Mariners GM (Phil) said:

I'm just confused on Max's arguement

My argument is that at any point in the last 4 years since I've been in the league, I could have dealt Fisher for something, anything at all. And it's likely that, seeing as how quickly and mindlessly most people vote on and approve trades (we're all guilty of it), no one would have noticed and then it would be someone else's problem. Instead, however, since I kept him (because I like him) I am punished by receiving nothing in return. The 5th round pick the franchise received way back when would have been adequate had I not been lead to believe that I owned Fisher for the 4 years since then. And quite honestly, how am I supposed to be in charge of making sure one of my players doesn't get drafted? No one pays attention to every single pick made. I'm absolutely sure I just didn't pay attention to it because I didn't need to -- it wasn't my pick. Again, as I previously posted, I feel the 11th pick in the upcoming draft is fair compensation.

Basically, my key point here is that the comp the franchise received back in 2012 was adequate at the time; however, seeing as how I have been led to believe I owned Fisher for the last 4 seasons, that comp is no longer valid. At any point in time I could have traded Fisher for anything at all and gotten more value than the nothing some people propose I get now. The reason I propose the 11th pick as comp is because that is Fisher's approximate value at this point in time, the time that I am (apparently) losing him. And even so, it's getting a Rookie/A-ball draft prospect for a AAA guy. But if that's what it comes down to, I can accept that since value wise it seems to be fair.

[Astros GM (Will)]

The fact that you had Fisher for 4 years while the pick had already been compensated is inconsequential to the argument. The player was returned and the draft pick was compensated. The transaction is complete.

Errors occur all the time. When I took over my team, my roster indicated I owned Jeimer Candelario when in fact the previous Astros owner had released him and another team subsequently drafted him (baseknock.proboards.com/post/31468). Just because I believed Candelario was on my team for any amount of time does not mean I am in anyway deserving of compensation when the previous owner had already completed the transaction by releasing the player. 

It is obviously an unfortunate event for your team, but as a staff member yourself surely you realize why more compensation cannot be given. The investment in Fisher may be lost, but your team's initial costs have been repaid in full.

[Pirates GM (Max)]

Aug 12, 2016 12:10:43 GMT -5 Astros GM (Will) said:

The fact that you had Fisher for 4 years while the pick had already been compensated is inconsequential to the argument. The player was returned and the draft pick was compensated. The transaction is complete.

Errors occur all the time. When I took over my team, my roster indicated I owned Jeimer Candelario when in fact the previous Astros owner had released him and another team subsequently drafted him (baseknock.proboards.com/post/31468). Just because I believed Candelario was on my team for any amount of time does not mean I am in anyway deserving of compensation when the previous owner had already completed the transaction by releasing the player. 

It is obviously an unfortunate event for your team, but as a staff member yourself surely you realize why more compensation cannot be given. The investment in Fisher may be lost, but your team's initial costs have been repaid in full.

The league staff (way before I was league staff) told me I owned Fisher. I have always believed I owned Fisher. I could have done whatever the hell I wanted with Fisher since I was told I owned him. But I chose to keep him. There's a million possible scenarios I could've done with trading him. But I kept him after being told I had him. Like I said -- 4 years ago the 5th was accurate comp. Now, after being told I've had him for 4 years, that's not okay. It's a mistake: mistakes happen. But there needs to be some responsibility for said mistake. Not just taking away my player who I was told I owned for 4 years and now randomly being told I don't

[Pirates GM (Max)]

Any ruling? Or will I just have my best and one of my personal favorite prospects ripped away from me after being informed that I owned him for the past 4 years in exchange for nothing at all?

[Angels GM (Derrick)]

Why is this thread still going?

The Pirates organization has already been compensated for the loss of Fisher. Compensation that was used to progress the franchise through multiple trades.

The blame for his name remaining on the Pirates roster falls just as much on the team owner as it does the league staff. Nobody is expected to know the entire league roster of every player owned, but we do expect each GM to know his or her own teams roster inside and out. We have had several instances throughout the years were a draft pick was made or a free agent posted of an already owned player and the owning GM will speak up and let everyone know that said player is already owned. This did not happen during the 2014 draft. The GM who thought he owned Fisher, who at the time was a 1st round talent didn't say a word when Fisher was drafted early in the 2nd round. Fisher was a highly regarded college prospect heading into the 2014 draft, one would find it odd that through all the draft talk and player research leading up to the draft not once was anything said by the GM that thought they already owned a top 30 2014 draft prospect.

[Pirates GM (Max)]

Aug 14, 2016 5:35:32 GMT -5 Angels GM (Derrick) said:

Why is this thread still going?

The Pirates organization has already been compensated for the loss of Fisher. Compensation that was used to progress the franchise through multiple trades.

The blame for his name remaining on the Pirates roster falls just as much on the team owner as it does the league staff. Nobody is expected to know the entire league roster of every player owned, but we do expect each GM to know his or her own teams roster inside and out. We have had several instances throughout the years were a draft pick was made or a free agent posted of an already owned player and the owning GM will speak up and let everyone know that said player is already owned. This did not happen during the 2014 draft. The GM who thought he owned Fisher, who at the time was a 1st round talent didn't say a word when Fisher was drafted early in the 2nd round. Fisher was a highly regarded college prospect heading into the 2014 draft, one would find it odd that through all the draft talk and player research leading up to the draft not once was anything said by the GM that thought they already owned a top 30 2014 draft prospect.

So you're blaming this on me even though it happened before I got here? I had no idea we weren't allowed to own previously unsigned prospects (how the hell would I?) and I'm sorry I didn't follow every goddamn pick of a draft without anyone telling me I needed to

This is YOUR fault as the LMs and Master Roster keepers, and you're basically telling me to go fuck myself? What a poor, poor job of running the league. Maybe that's why this place isn't near as active or fun as it used to be