Message board »Message Board home »Sign-in or register to get started
Online now: 2 members: TABLE SETTER 11, The Wizard; 203 anonymousDiscussion: MOV\' UP ONCE W/ OUT BE\' RELEASE.....?
| Posted | Discussion |
| Dec. 17, 2007 STONEMAN Men's 50 535 posts | MOV' UP ONCE W/ OUT BE' RELEASE.....? Can SS-USA publish the how to for the follow': 1) How or can a player move up 1, 2, or 3 divisions w/ out a release. As I understand, a player can move up once in a season w/out a release? (Move up to a higher division.) 2) R there any reason why a player can be released w/ out the MGR's / Coaches release? 3) Example: Can a 55+ player play 50 Major Plus & 55 Majors? As I understand it, a player that plays in M+, can go up, but must stay in M+. A 60 yr ol' M+ player can go down to 55 Majors? ( A 55 M+, can play 50 Majors!) 4) Any other important facts 4 roster changes, etc. or any false misconceptions? THANKS......... The STONEMAN |
| Dec. 18, 2007 einstein Men's 50 3112 posts | Hey Stoney. Where you goin' with that gun in your hand? On the other side of the "keep sandbaggers out of AA and AAA" controversey is the "major plus" application that limits the best players/teams in the country for no good reason. When I played for Kelly's who was the best team in the country for a while, other teams like Mac 2 and the Mavericks for example never complained. They just got better and more motivated to beat the best so they could be the best. Next year it will be the Mavericks who have loaded up with a couple of the best Kelly's guys for next year. All I think about now is getting on a team to kick their butts. SSUSA and the rest-- stop restricting rosters, equipment and players at the highest level and let the us decide who's best at any given tournament, any time or any year. The motivation to beat or be the best will stimulate interest and maintain meaningful order. |
| Dec. 19, 2007 audieh Men's 60 249 posts | Einstein, I agree. Please stop restricting the major plus divisions. We want good balls, good bats, no run limits per innings, and no borders on players. Let the free market have it's place and things on the top level will work themselves out. |
| Dec. 19, 2007 the wood Men's 65 1123 posts | Re: Geographic restrictions |
| Dec. 19, 2007 DesertGuy Men's 60 224 posts | I'm not sure what the wood was going to type, but I favor keeping the geographic restrictions. Only exception might be where there is not a team in the player's state or those nearby. If geographic restrictions go away, the rich will get richer, with the sponsored teams openly buying their talent. The result will be an outcry from some here for a Major++ division above the Major+ now. Unless the non sponsor teams get knocked down to simple Majors. Should be a lively discussion then. |
| Dec. 19, 2007 the wood Men's 65 1123 posts | Re: Geographic restrictions I do not know if either of you were playing senior ball in the late 90s but the 50 major plus division wasn't pretty. There were only 3-4 major plus teams (50s). Having been through it once, I do not wish to see this in my future again. The underlying current in the 'old scene' was no geographic restrictions and the result was that the rich got richer... this meant fewer teams and, consequently, fewer participating players. The likelihood is that the major plus players that are 'left behind' end up on major teams... and a trickle down effect from there. In 2000, they insituted borders for all divisions. In the past few years there have been 7-8 teams in some events (55 major +). I keep hearing this argument (totally opening up the borders) and keep suggesting that those that want this should try playing in the Huntsman Games. I have heard many good things about this event but have never been there myself. As a sponsor, my interest in putting $$ into a team with 'open bidding' will cease. Overall, the senior game is healthy but my only frame of reference is the major + division. When they did make the changes (geographically) it opened up the higher division... meaning that new teams came into play. Be careful of what you request because the reality may not match your ideal. Audie, would you like a scenario where there are fewer major + teams to play? The exception to this, in my opinion, is for the land locked person... i.e. no major + teams in his/her area. Re: major + players Stone, this is what I have been told... 1) a major + player is someone that is on a major plus team's roster, no distinction is made between the best and the worst players... your name is either on the roster or it isn't. 2) a major + player can play for a major team so long as he is the only one. I've been told recently that it's now 2 major + players (perhaps some distinction is made for a new team v. a player playing for another team during the season in an isolated event). 3) if a major + team plays in a lower age bracket it still is considered a major + team. Therefore, a 55 major + team should not be able to play as a 50 major team. We asked this specific question in 2002 as we were short of 55 guys and wanted to play 50 major... no dice for us (SSWC, Phoenix, 2002). However, I'm told that an IN team did this in Manassas this past summer but I wasn't there to witness it. But in the 2006 Winter World (LV) we (GSF) were put into a combined bracket with both 50 major and major + teams. Your question of whether a 55 major + player can play both 50 major + and 55 major... unless the 55 major part is only an isolated event (or there is only one player in that mode), I'd say that this is not possible. Again, this based upon just my personal experience. I hope that this helps... BW |
| Dec. 19, 2007 Lecak Men's 60 1026 posts | I would like to add this point, even where you have Major + teams they may have their rosters where they want them, and a player is left to fend. Wouldn't it be nice if this pool of players probably small have options to go outside their region and play at the level they would like. How many teams and players could we possibly be talking about. An individual at Senior softball explained playing Major + for the first time as kind of like walking the plank seemed like an appropriate description. |
| Dec. 19, 2007 Lecak Men's 60 1026 posts | Wood I saw your response after mine I would defer to your experience I am coming from strictly an individual view where at least there maybe a choice. |
| Dec. 19, 2007 the wood Men's 65 1123 posts | Stone: Re: manager's release of players... we have always released players when they left our team so I have no personal ax to grind. Years ago, we used to have a 'drop dead' date whereby a player either sat out the balance of the year, played with his original team or secured a release in order to go to a new team (after this date). My recollection is shady on the exact time of year but let's say that it was May 15 (I would favor a later one). Any time prior to that date, a player can change teams w/o a release. Again, I would favor having the date just prior to the first national tourney (not qualifiers). But if is beyond the date and he/she cannot obtain a written relaease, then a 'review board' would take a look at it with the power to release the player if they felt the circumstances warranted it... particularly in the case of a multiple offender (team that has a blatant history of illicitly stockpiling players). A team needs a certain amount of protection from a player leaving at the last minute... it can't be just a one way street. Lecak, you mentioned that if the player played in a different division, etc... while this is less a threat to the first team, it might still leave them short-handed. Bear in mind that on every team you have players that commit to the team, its schedule and its other players... to complete the schedule. Several guys on our teams have to fight for vacation time and specific dates. They do so expecting to have their nucleas present and this becomes a bilateral commitment. It cannot all be about the player but we do need a review board of some sort... again, this is just my opinion. BW |
| Dec. 19, 2007 audieh Men's 60 249 posts | Bob, nice comments and thanks for bringing in the history. I realize that with open borders my better players will be bought by others as I am a little guy with limited funds. Then I'll have to recruit lesser known super stars! :) However, that would be the free market. I was sorta of looking at this from the following view point. In Florida we can recruit Georgia as well as Alabama. With those limitations we can put together only one true major plus team. However, since some of our better major teams have won tournaments they are moved up to major plus and then they are not truly competitive. Just think how strong a California Major Plus team would be if they had all of the best players from those adjoining states. Thankfully, there are several major plus teams in California competing for players which dilutes their teams somewhat. Other wise they would walk through every tournament. Granted I perfer bigger tournaments but the word from some of our Florida major plus teams is why go when you are not competitive. Perhaps, open borders would help them recruit more talent! |
| Dec. 19, 2007 the wood Men's 65 1123 posts | Audie, I believe that you are describing the issues that face the major teams more than the major +. Yes, once they are moved up they are in the major + division but I mean the major teams before they are bumped. Perhaps this is where cooler heads and brighter minds could help forge some level of positive resolution. I, for one, do not feel that winning a major tourney is cause for a major + ranking. This started in the late 70s-early 80s with the B & C teams (non-age based). You win, you move up. This makes little sense to me. On the other hand, if a team is truly dominating (I realize that this requiresome degree of operational definition), then this is a different story. While I'm using the major/major + example, I believe that this concept is just as viable on the cusp of the AA/AAA and AAA/major divisions. The unspoken here in So Cal is that it doesn't pay to play real well early in the year as this is usually the ranking 'kiss of death'. One of luxuries of being a major + team is that we avoid this concern. Now that the 55 major + division has diminished somewhat (fewer So West teams) there is a void out here that may well be filled with a team that is 'too successful' before June 1st. This is a travesty... in both directions. Somehow, we must find a way for... 1) everyone to have access to the playing level that is truly appropriate to him/her... 2) maintain the competitive balance as much as humanly possible... this does imply that we win all of the time... but that we merely have the chance to win. these objectives will create conflicts at times but all of us need to do what we can to respect them and follow them (I didn't make them up)... if we do there would be no 'cheater bats' (as an example). We all spend a lot of money each year and this drives profits for several organizations. I take no issue with this as it is the free enterprise system. But I sincerely feel that we ought to exercise our financial power in a more constructive manner. This board (by encouraging independent thought) has paved the way for some significant changes over the past 2-3 years... there is room for more. Again, these are just my views... formed from years as a manager, player, sponsor and Summit Board member. BW |
| Dec. 19, 2007 STONEMAN Men's 50 535 posts | WOOD: U still r my favorite butt head. Please, stay on 1st base & out of Right field. This post is about MGR's that act & think that they, the MGR's r god.. As a player that has influence w/ THE SUMMIT, please, let players know what "RIGHTS" a player has.... NONE.. that right.... NOT ONE D.... ONE... PERIOD.... 1) If, a player is NOt sure that player wants to spend the whole yr play' 4 a team, what can, or should that player do? 2) Players, do NOT have any rights, just the MGR's.... If, u SENIORS, do NOT believe me, just ask Pat Tobin & NO MO. 3) Before one signs their life 4 a yr, get that MGR to sign a release form, that is NOT dated..... Bob, there r many good & fair MGR's. But, there r a few MEAN , BAD, etc MGR's.... Please, stay on the topic & start ur own thread. I LOVE U........ The STONEMAN |
| Dec. 20, 2007 the wood Men's 65 1123 posts | Stone: I made the effort to answer your questions about manager releases. If you don't like the answers be more careful about posing the questions. The rules about manager releases are what they are. Other than a few isolated instances, there haven't been a lot of problems with the status quo. Granted, I veered from your original topic. But I was responding to the points already stated on this thread. It's there for you to read if you will take the time to do it. You also asked about major/major + issues, which I responded to also. Players' rights? I have stated this in the past and will do so again. Until the players take the intiative to solidify themselves as a governing body they/we will continue to have only the rights that others see fit to give us. This is not a new concept... it dates back to Curt Flood, to the Emancipation Proclamation and even the Revolutionary War. Those in power typically do not give away any of it without due cause... i.e. the common folk taking it away in some manner. Labor unions were initiated and this wasn't well received by industry if you recall. Stone, you may not like my reply but it is in line with your question. Finally, a Summit Board member has no more power than anyone else. We are merely in an advisory capacity... we're not even paid consultants, which would carry more weight. By and large, we take the time to be involved in order to make whatever little difference we can. Incidentally, you give me too much credit for having influence with the Summit... I'm merely a worker bee. We tune into this board and read the comments and, after sorting the clear from the unclear, we present them to our advisory group. It then determines which issues are most important and which have a snowball's chance of being heard. So, if you're really serious about players rights, do more than offer an occasional rant. I believe that your heart is in the right place. This board has been the breeding place for many good ideas... perhaps you can find a positive way to create change as it relates to players' rights. Many will complain but very few will act. BW |
| Dec. 20, 2007 The Great McGonigle Men's 50 13 posts | Wood, I commend you for handling a volatile person/situation with class. I am still amazed that adults can babble on endlessly about NOTHING! I would expect this senseless crying from a high school student or . . . one who has gone through life flappin his jaws and getting his buttocks kicked – never learning when to quit acting like a horsefly. My money is on the latter! |
| Dec. 20, 2007 the wood Men's 65 1123 posts | McGonigle? any relation to Billy McGonigle? BW |
| Dec. 20, 2007 STONEMAN Men's 50 535 posts | WOOD; The M+, was an example. I do NOT give a rats ..... about M+ players. The question..... players rights!!!! This post is about: 1) What r a players rights??? 2) Do players really have any rights??? 3) Can players protect their self against MGRs? 4) Question... why, do some MGR's ruin 1/2 or more of a yr 4 players?? Bob, u r a class act. If, one of ur players want a release, that player is released..... That is the right thing. But, there r more than a few MGR's that will not release players & state the diff'. SS-USA, has informed me that a player can move up in division w/ out a release. (This can be done only once a yr.) Then, another Senior SS-USA rep, tells me NO, not so. WHAT GIVES??? WHAT is the truth???? A M+ player must stay M+ 4 that yr in that age group. So, a lower division player can move up, but, must stay M+ 4 the whole yr. (That player can NOT go back fown.) A few yrs ago, a 55 yr ol' player was play' in the 50 M+ division. That player was NOT allowed to play in the 55 Major Division.This player was informed that he had to play in the M+ division.... 7 so on... & so on. SS-USA, has informed me that @ the present, the only way a player can protect theirself.... is to get their MGR, to sign a pre-dated release form.... If, a player wants to leave, all that player has to do is write in the date.. May 15th.... thats a new one. I have never read or been told about May 15th, as a date that players can get an "automatic" release. A review board, I was told that there is No players review board. Wood, NOT only New but, ol' hands do NOT understand, get' a release. SS-USA, seems to take the MGR's word. My request... 4 player to understand; 4 MGR's that act like GODs, to be stopped; try NOT to add or read into the post. Wood, I am NOT allowed to state facts, name teams or MGR's, if , I do so, I will NOT be allowed to post any more. So, WOOD, what will u do??? I am NO longer allowed to speak the truth; state Names; state Teams, etc. Still my favorite butt head. My is a team allowed to have over 20 players on their roster?? Why, can this same team be allowed to pick up more players & NOT release players. Example: A team has 12 - 14 players. U r the 13-14 player. Ur MGR, picks up 2-3 more players & U get less play'time or told NOT to show up. Ur MGR, will NOt release u. I hope several of the players that I am talk' about will come forward. Call or E-mail SS-USA. YES, this even happens in the 65's. BOB... can or will SS-USA, post the HOW TO??? or WHAT ONE CAN DO?? Good luck w/ ur 60 team....... The STONEMAN |
| Dec. 21, 2007 The Great McGonigle Men's 50 13 posts | No relation Wood. From a family of Jugglers and scumbag busters. Will keep a look out. Keep up the good work. |
| Dec. 21, 2007 the wood Men's 65 1123 posts | Stone: When you made the opening post on this thread you made several statements/quasi statements. Among them was the point about 'manager releases' and/or the lack of them. I honestly did not see that as your main theme. Seeing that it was/is, the rule is what it is. Some managers hide behind it but most do not. As I previously stated, I believe that the rule does have practical value but I also see how it negatively impacts players at times... unfairly. While I am but one person, I will make every effort to get this issue on the table in January (Summit meeting). As far as the butt head line... it didn't offend me as I have been called much worse many times... and I knew that it was meant in gest. But I was bothered that you felt that it was me that highjacked your thread... I'm over that. BW |
| Dec. 21, 2007 STONEMAN Men's 50 535 posts | BOB: Thanks, I am sure that u do understand that many Seniors do NOT understand many Senior Rules. 4 some reason, Senior Rule books r hard to come buy. It also, appears, that it is almost impossible to find out many Rules. This past yr, I had several "friends", who had to set out 4 - 6 months, because that player did NOT know the Rules & or, that player was on a team, that did NOT release players. I can NOT understand why, a MGR, who has 14-16 players will or CAN pick up 2 - 4 players & does NOT have to release any players. 4 some of u, just think.... how would u like to be the 13-14 player, get limited play' time.... & then ur MGR, picks up 2 or more players, & u can NOT get released. I hope that SS-USA & the SUMMIT, will make an attemp to better inform player; allow players to find a team that a person can get play' time. This is NOT H.S. or College. At our age, NO one wants to be on the Hamburger Squad. So.... any of u players that have been mistreated, please write, call, or E-Mail members of the Summit. Again, thanks Bob, 4 tak' time out to fully understand some player needs, when MGR's become mean or Spitful The STONEMAN.. |
| Dec. 23, 2007 STONEMAN Men's 50 535 posts | Does anyone have any suggestions or deal' w/ a Bad MGR? What about players that r not release: 1) Set' out 3 months & then can sign w/ another team? 2) A player that is on a team of 14 players or more can get an automatic release? 3) Teams w/ 14 or more players can pick or add players, but, must release the same amount of players who wish to be released? 4) Players can get an Automatic released by the 1st of March or after one tournament? 5) A players review Board? Dave, No Mo, & Einstein, how about some help....... this thread is die'. The STONEMAN.... |
| Dec. 23, 2007 the wood Men's 65 1123 posts | Stone; your message isn't dying... don't confuse activity with results. Your point has been well taken... BW |
| Dec. 23, 2007 einstein Men's 50 3112 posts | Hey Stoneman, You made all the right points and so did the Woodman on this one. The points been made well and as an old Italian friend once told me "if it ain't worth killin', just let 'em go." Players who pay their own way should have everything to say regarding whom they want to play for. I think the league and the players should determine who plays, when where and how and not overseers, merchants, regulators or politicians. . |
| Dec. 24, 2007 docswear Men's 55 99 posts | Stoneman... your post is a subject near and dear to my heart. I really don't see the point of "holding on" to a guy that doesn't want to stay with the team he is with. Most of the people I play with are playing because they enjoy the game but more because they enjoy who they are spending their weekends with. The last think I would want as a player would be to have a team-mate that did not want to be a part of the good times envolved with this group. Perhaps as players we could encourage our managers to, as a great man once said "let my people go"... That is, if a player wants out, let him go. I mean, really, this is not life and death going on here. It is not a high tech business that is counting on some employee to keep the company going. Granted, some teams have short rosters and are counting on their numbers to be able to keep playing but I would rather not play than play with someone that did not want to be there. What is the point? I do believe that to play in a "major" tourney you must have a fixed roster with those on your team having played in a qualifier so if someone is "worried" about a competior building a power-house team in a big tourney, I think, unless I am wrong, that issue is covered. So maybe if managers use good sense, treat others how they might like to be treated themselves, and the associations drop the need for a player to be realeased, none of this would be an issue. We agree... I don't think a manager really has the right to hold a player on his team and keep him from being released to play with someone else. Probably not a popular side of this issue with some, but... oh well... Have a merry christmas... docswear |
