Mr. EFL Answer Man: Villar? EFL Meeting?

That was just 24 hours ago.  I hope the Imp in Pittsburgh wasn’t holding his breath all this time. Here is the rule:

2.)   and the other side of the trade consists entirely of cash, the EFL team may “trade” for “cash” in the form of release from its contractual obligations to the player(s) it is trading away. 

3.) and the other side of the trade includes minor league players, the EFL trading team may elect to keep those players by adding them to the payroll at the minimum wage, or to drop those players without obligation (as if they disappeared into the EFL team’s faceless minor league system, never to be seen again).  If the minor league player kept in this way has already debuted in MLB, he will be treated as a Rookie if his Rookie status would not have expired had he been drafted in the Rookie Draft; otherwise he will be treated as a veteran and will cost his actual MLB salary.  If the minor league player has not yet debuted in MLB, he can be owned in the EFL at the minimum wage until his debut.  In the season of his debut, his EFL team may play him by allocating him to a position (or as a pitcher), making that year the first of his five consecutive Rookie years in EFL, or may hold him out of play by allocating him 100% to be inactive for the remainder of the debut year, in which case the next year is perforce his first Rookie year in the EFL.     

4.) The option expires at the end of the next manager’s meeting (the Annual Free Agent Draft counting as a managers meeting for this purpose).  The option to trade a drafted player to an MLB team does not begin until that draft is over and ends at the roster deadline.  

Here are the issues presented in this correspondence, with their resolution:

1. Can Portland horn in on the Schoop/Villar trade?   Answer: Yes. Portland has Villar.  Everyone else on that side of the trade is a minor leaguer. So Portland is an EFL team owning all the MLB parts of one side of the deal.

2.  Can Portland claim Schoop unilaterally?   Answer: No.  Schoop is already owned by an EFL team. Portland cannot force the Tornados to hand over Schoop.

3.  If Portland cannot claim Schoop unilaterally, can they still trade Villar? Answer: Yes.  They can trade Villar for everything in the deal other than Schoop.  Which, in this case, is nothing.

This anomaly arises from another anomaly: we own players while MLB teams still own them, too.  Portland has found a taker for Villar — the Orioles.  The Orioles are ready to hand over Schoop.  Unfortunately, in our universe, Schoop is already in the EFL.  We allow ourselves to duplicate an MLB team’s contract with a player, but we don’t allow players to play simultaneously for two teams in the EFL.

But Portland is willing to accommodate the Orioles’ interest in Villar even if they can’t deliver Schoop.  The Orioles are fine — Flint Hill and Milwaukee are both paying Schoop, so the Orioles are rid of their obligations to Schoop. Schoop is fine.  The deal is fine, even if the Rosebuds aren’t getting anything back.

4.) Can Flint Hill force the Rosebuds to take Schoop?  The answer: Yes.  Here is the specific section covering this option:

So if Flint Hill would rather have Villar than Schoop, or would like to saddle the Rosebuds with Schoop without taking on Villar, they can make this happen. Schoop would go to Portland, taking his salary with him.  (Note: this does not require Portland to take the prospects.  Their right to ignore the minor leaguers is secured in subsection 3.)

5.) Can Flint Hill somehow acquire Villar in this deal without giving Portland access to Schoop?  The Answer: No.  Since all trades in the EFL occur simultaneously on the stroke of 12:00 AM (midnight) August 1, no matter when they are announced (up to the deadline for August rosters), the Rosebuds own Villar right up to the moment of the trade, as do the Tornados own Schoop.  There is no time at which the Tornados can effectuate the trade after the Rosebuds have ceased to own Villar.  So the Rosebuds have the same option to take Schoop in the deal as the Tornados do to take Villar.

6.) What happens to the $3,000,000 subsidy the Kangaroos are paying the Rosebuds “for Villar”?  Answer: That depends on what happens to Villar. I believe we’ve established a principle that such subsidies attach to the player unless clearly agreed otherwise.  In this case, the subsidy attaches to the player.  If the Tornados acquire Villar, they acquire the same Villar the Rosebuds had — with the subsidy through 2020.  If the Tornados decline to grab Villar and he is reunified as a single person playing for the Orioles, the Kangaroos will no longer owe the subsidy and it will come off their obligations.

7.) Can the Rosebuds withdraw their decision to trade Villar away?  Answer:  I think in this case, given that it’s the first time we’ve faced these complications and any number of owners  may be as surprised as the Alleghenys by the way the rule works,  I believe they should be able to withdraw the trade if they do so promptly — before the managers meeting, to give people time to react to their decision.  I can be overruled on this by a vote of the owners.

8.) Now that you mention it, when is the manager’s meeting?  Answer: At the moment it’s still set for Saturday morning Aug 4 at 8:00 AM — BUT we are on the brink of moving it to Monday evening 5:00 PM.    6 of us have said  Monday evening works.  One has said “maybe”.  One has said “no”. I have not heard yet from Brooks, John, or Jamie (unless I’ve missed a message, which is possible.)   If one of them can do Monday evening we will have 7 and that will make it clearly our best option.

I will try to get in touch with these gentlemen this evening to nail this down. .