Troy Woodson - MLB

[Tommygamer]

watchthis said:

wtf - When the hell was that rule added? Bruce Jones signed after W1 last year.

While Young Gun has not logged in in a while, this rule was instated to prevent veteran players from wanting to use such a loophole. This was passed while you were GM.

[TesT]

watchthis said:

Well, after W3 you can expect an offer from us.

I kinda blew it off the first time....

The intent of the VFA money is to bring back players from the dead who might show up wanting to get back on a team.

In effect, arent you cutting the feet from under 5 other teams by telling him you have VFA money saved for him? That's kinda shitty if you ask me. Now all he has to do is just totally ignore all other offers.

Bruce Jones?

[TesT]

And Woodson has logged on as recent as.....

Last Login Date: Feb 9, 2008, 8:57pm

[Tommygamer]

After re-reading statements and offers, this IS a blatant attempt to circumvent a problem we were trying to avoid.

If a player wants to come back to a team, then that is what the $50M is for. If an inactive player wants to return to the league, that is what VFA moneys are for. As the Playboys still have regular season moneys, I do not see any problem with him signing with them for the regular season. However, this comment shows no regards to the rules placed for such reason.

As this point has been brought up and there yet is no "infraction", I would recommend to the commish's office nothing be done. However, I would prohibit Woodson from signing with the Playboys for any VFA moneys. Tampering is not just breaking the rules, it also is bending them. This is a clear attempt to bend such rules. If he were to sign via VFA funds, then that would be breaking them.

Edit: To prove a point, punishment is handed out from the commissioner's office. If he deemed necessary to warn the Playboys by removing said VFA funds, or to punish by fines or other means, I would have no problem with that.

[TesT]

There will be no fine and this is the Playboys warning.

Since Woodson has been online recently, he will not be eligible for VFA funds from the Playboys. If they want to sign him, they'll have to use the reg. budget money they currently have available.

Future infractions or attempts to circumvent the rules YOU voted on will be dealt with by losing VFA funds or being fined directly from your reg. budget in future seasons.

Sorry Watchthis, this is the only fair ruling that can be made. You voted on these new VFA rules and knew the loophole we were trying to close.

[cantstopdee11]

wow, that really doesnt seem fair to the playboys..if he can't sign with them..he shouldnt be able to sign with any teams

[watchthis]

Ok, holy fuck.

This is tampering? Are you shitting me? This is the FA period, and I'm saying he will have a contract coming at a later time. Every team ever has done that. So

We attempted to sign Woodson. We've had offers out for weeks and he hasn't signed. You didn't do shit last season when the Pythons did the same thing. Now you're trying to stop me? That's bullshit.

I'm not attempting to do shit. I attempted to sign him with normal money, but he never showed up. So now I'm waiting and will offer it to him later.

And TesT, how come this new warning/punishment system seems to always affect me and no other team unless I fight for it because they do the same thing?

[TesT]

He logged on FEB 8TH. 3 DAYS ago.

You're telling me he didn't see your contract offer? Instead you promised him VFA money. That's the loophole we were trying to close. That's the loophole you voted to close, and that's the loophole I'll close by not allowing ANY VFA to sign with his former team if I need to.

You know you can't PROMISE a player VFA money.

If I had posted in Devon Edwards thread..."Hey, we'll give you $5M of VFA money after W3.", you wouldnt have said a damn thing?

lol..right!

[watchthis]

And he didn't post. I had even sent him a PM, but apparently he just logged on and off right away without seeing the offer.

Not allowing any VFA to sign with his former team. That's not in the rules. That's actually breaking the rules.

Where does it say you can't promise a player VFA money? Besides, I didn't promise it to him at first. I offered a normal contract. Now, because he hasn't showed up in a long time, I'm saying basically, "Don't rush to sign with another team because we will have an offer too." What's wrong with that? Nothing. It happens all the time. What does it matter what budget it's coming from.

And you can only offer $3M with VFA money.

[TesT]

Wow...

You don't get it do you. Do you have any idea why the RC worked on those added rules last season or did you just vote on whatever worked for the Playboys at the time?

[watchthis]

This wasn't and still isn't in the rules. You have absolutely zero ground for stopping us from signing him with VFA money. I never voted on this.

[TesT]

The VFA money is about to disappear. It's more headache than what it's worth. If these people can't show to sign during the off-season or if teams can't find room with their reg. budget, so be it. It's their loss.

This VFA money was added to bring back players from the DEAD. NOT to offer players who have logged in as recent as 3 days ago.

[watchthis]

Let's get rid of it. I don't like it.

[TesT]

Do you understand why teams have the VFA money?

Can I cut 2 players now and promise them VFA money after W3?

[watchthis]

We already asked you that last season, remember?