|
Post by phillies17 on Jan 13, 2018 9:26:41 GMT -5
I would like to see the addition of a second round. This pick would also be fixed so there could be no trading of the pick or the player for a year (I'm even fine with 2 years based on other suggestions if it helps). In my one year here I have noticed some things that seem to play into at least my interpretation of its far easier for the rich to stay rich, while the poor stay poor. In general it would appear that top teams can stockpile money and prospects and effectively overdrive the market on spending and trade value. The prospect game is still somewhat of a crapshoot so even going strictly draft never guarantees success. The other aspect I have noticed is the back end of the active roster. Lets face it, no team will field 25 all stars, most of them are league average to slightly above. Under our current system, draft picks are just too valuable to part with for these type players even though a couple of them here and there can actually be enough for some teams to be more successful. Maybe its that lefty in either your rotation or bullpen, or you want an OF that bats right-handed since you are poor against lefties or maybe you just need some speed to steal a base against Rivera with 2 outs in the 9th inning when trailing by a run. Anyway that's my $.02, take it for whats its worth (nothing I know).
Here are my bullet points on why I'm throwing this out there: 1. Complaints of roster quality and giving up draft picks. Another fixed pick builds a team whether they want to or not. 2. Lessens the value of at least that 4th round pick. You know you are getting 2 more picks form probably the same pool of players. It now might be worth a back half of the roster player. Player movement is fun, creates a more active league and the more teams that make a push the better off the entire league is if more competitive. 3. Fills up rosters faster. If you are a hoarder, you will need to move players off your reserve roster. Free's up this level of talent for trading or at least movement. Again, player movement and activity. I think we need to adjust the waiver rules so players released for roster space do not go right to FA. 4. A cheap possible active roster addition before free agency starts.
I do have thoughts on a quasi Rule V draft if people would rather that instead of a straight prospect draft. We could make that the 2nd round of the winter draft. It would not be labor intensive for the committee and limit the act of burying players that should be on active rosters and reduce some hoarding.
Anyway, those are my thoughts.
|
|
|
Post by rockiesgm on Jan 13, 2018 14:49:58 GMT -5
I am against adding a round to the winter draft for a couple reasons:
1. I don't think it will help player movement one bit. I think this league has swayed over to a more draft-and-follow type of GM, so this will only feed that jones for them. The retort to that will be "those GMs will run out of roster space" and my response would be maybe but I think it's far more likely to create a movement to then expand rosters. I can't see this league ever getting to the point where players of any value will need to be waived or traded.
2. I'm just not a big fan of the winter draft in the first place. Sure it breaks up the offseason dulldrums but I also think it gives the bad teams a large advantage when combined with the regular draft. The bad teams (by that I mean the ones that finished with poor records and not meant to be a personal slight in any way) then get first dibs at players at two crucial times within the year. In the winter, they get first dibs at international guys coming off their full year in the states and all the prospects that had big second halfs or successful big league debuts. In the summer they get first dibs at all the high-end high school talent, college players and prospects that had a big first half of the season. If you're constantly finishing with a poor record, it's probably not the general structure of the league that's keeping you there. In reality, you probably just suck at evaluating talent because the system is heavily weighted to feed you impact prospects.
3. To sum up, I'm not in favor of adding rounds to the draft. All it will do is further send this league down the draft-and-follow rabbit hole. But if you do add rounds, it should all be in a single draft, the draft system is already heavily in favor of the bad teams and Tanking-Ty-Types. I say that jokingly because I have no problem with what Ty did, it was within the rules of the league, but for better or worse, he's the poster child of that type of team management.
Just my two cents.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 13, 2018 15:05:04 GMT -5
3. To sum up, I'm not in favor of adding rounds to the draft. All it will do is further send this league down the draft-and-follow rabbit hole. But if you do add rounds, it should all be in a single draft, the draft system is already heavily in favor of the bad teams and Tanking-Ty-Types. I say that jokingly because I have no problem with what Ty did, it was within the rules of the league, but for better or worse, he's the poster child of that type of team management.
|
|
|
Post by bluejaysgm on Jan 13, 2018 17:21:07 GMT -5
I would like to see the winter draft be switched to something more like a Rule V type draft (although not from our rosters). The work required behind it could be divided up amongst the whole league. The only players eligible would be those that the league determines are eligible by finding all players that are age 23 or above that have surpassed 100 AB's and 30 IP's in MLB. If they are not added to the list (by a certain deadline in December) then they could not be added in the winter draft.
Players added would have rookie status in NSBL (xxx) but would be players that are of the type to be ready to contribute (most 4A or bench types) now. We've done this in DMBO and not every year but every so often you get one or two good guys that have slipped through the regular draft and are quite valuable, but most are 4th/5th type SP's, RP's, bench OF/IF, backup C types that are signed cheap and used for their xxx-3rd years. A few stars have been found this way but most are just cheap fillers.
You could do one or two rounds for this (picks would not be allowed to be traded) and a team could always choose to forfeit their pick if they didn't have a player they wanted to draft on the list. In DMBO our list each year has always been 60 or more players to choose from.
|
|
|
Post by Cubbies on Jan 18, 2018 13:33:57 GMT -5
I wouldn't mind doing a mix-up, with maybe a 2 round draft, with the first round being what it is now, and the second round being a Rule V type of draft. The issue is though that we've never been able to develop a Rule V Draft. We've looked into it multiple times, and we've never come close to a consensus or majority rule. We always get a very wide array of ideas that don't typically have a lot in common. Since we don't use 40-man rosters, which is essential to a Rule V Draft, it means we'd have to come up with something completely different, and most owners don't like that. Then we get into the argument where some would like to see us get into unlimited roster limits with a 40-man roster and Rule V Drafts and stuff, while others want to see us keep smaller, more restrictive roster caps.
I see what Brian is saying with the whole "poor teams get first dibs twice" but that's not typically what happens. Usually the poor teams only get first dibs in the Winter because they've traded their Summer picks. Just eyeballing it, but 50% of the Top 10 picks each Summer are made by teams that had winning records the year before and traded for those picks previously. Take last Summer... Baltimore had three of the Top 10 picks. If we go back to 2015, Tampa had three of the Top 9. Toronto almost always has a Top 10 pick. Oakland used to be good about getting into the top of each draft too, but I think Jeff spends more time on his BNSL team than he does this one (which I can understand, it has more moving parts and this one he can put on auto-pilot).
When we developed the Winter Draft, it was to eliminate the idea of compensation picks in the Summer. We didn't like the idea of arbitrarily assigning player value to players and then assigning picks to that value. Especially when we viewed it as "Good teams have good players. So, it would be safe to assume that the good teams are the ones that lose good players in free agency too" so we didn't want to give those good teams extra picks, while the poor teams continued to stay poor. We are working to help the poor teams get out of the basement and create some competitive equality. Unfortunately, there will always be inequality when it comes to levels of commitment to the league and researching the best players to draft, etc. We can't control for that. But in the last two years we've really gotten a better group of owners in here. But it will take time. Mike in Philly inherited a shitshow of a roster. Pat with the Braves took on slightly better, and tried to compete initially but then saw it might be better to rebuild. Nate took on the Royals which had some crap contracts but a few decent prospects, and he's been adding to that stable of young players, and here in the next two years he's going to be competing for the AL Central title. Jason took over the Twins which had zero direction from Jay except for drafting, and then had Hayes take it one direction, a new owner take it a different direction, then Hayes take it back over back into the other direction again, and then Jason in his direction. In less than two years that team went in like four different directions. Those teams won't always be picking at the top of each draft, they are building something, and I can see it.
We are a draft-and-follow league. I know I rarely trade. I fall in love with my prospects and I hold onto them. That's where I get my greatest pleasure out of playing the game, grooming and following prospects. Owners like Brian and Hayes and Jim, they trade their guys more, and it works for them. There is no perfect way to build a winner. But we all know how we have the most fun because it's individual to us.
I don't know if the better way to increase roster movement is to increase the draft and/or restrict the rosters, forcing owners to waive/trade (consolidate) pieces or what. But I feel this is like the Rule V issue... we won't have a consensus on the matter. Some owners like hoarding their prospects to see what becomes of them, some like to trade them for immediate returns. No matter which course of action we take, some group is going to be disillusioned.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 18, 2018 13:44:06 GMT -5
I want to add this, because I think its needs to be said again and again... and I'm also not exactly sure how to fix it. Future draft picks are way overvalued... period! When the hypothetical player is more valuable than a real player... I think something needs to be done to address this... as I said, I'm not sure what it is yet, but something.
|
|
|
Post by Cubbies on Jan 18, 2018 13:50:27 GMT -5
I want to add this, because I think its needs to be said again and again... and I'm also not exactly sure how to fix it. Future draft picks are way overvalued... period! When the hypothetical player is more valuable than a real player... I think something needs to be done to address this... as I said, I'm not sure what it is yet, but something.
|
|
|
Post by Cubbies on Jan 18, 2018 13:51:50 GMT -5
If you see an industry-wide mis-evaluation, tis better to take advantage than to correct.
|
|
|
Post by phillies17 on Jan 18, 2018 14:05:56 GMT -5
My idea for Rule V would be as follows: Anyone on the reserve roster in years 2/3-6 would be draft eligible. Any 2/3-6 player flagged with an 'X' in the option column (explain below) would be draft eligible. Players get an X in the option box when they move from the Active roster to the reserve roster. This would be the only accounting needed by the committee. This would be the anti-stashing rule.
Teams naturally want to protect players from the draft that are ready to contribute in the upcoming year. This 'X' removes the draft stashing or benching a star to save a year of eligibility once their clock starts. Granted the player would bypass the draft initially, but guarantees they are draft eligible the following year. After the draft the X's are removed. I counted over 100 players in the 2-6 range in reserve. The 2 or 3 can be debated since there are players that play a year and either suck or get hurt and go back to reserve for a year or two. I would propose any 'X' would be removed if that player is traded since movement is part of the goal here.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 18, 2018 14:06:59 GMT -5
If you see an industry-wide mis-evaluation, tis better to take advantage than to correct. yeah, except when its paired with "my shit" is better than "your shit." oh did I say "shit"... the word is meaningless. I mean prospects. cause you know, I drafted them, so they must be better than yours. ; )
|
|
Whitesox
AAA
I'm just here for the free kool-aid
Posts: 773
|
Post by Whitesox on Jan 18, 2018 16:42:55 GMT -5
I would be open to a rule V type draft. It will just be hard to emulate the MLB rules. I'm not in fan of having a rule V draft which GMs choose from other players who are already on a roster. The occasional unpredictability of ZIPs and yet-to-be established players could give Mikes idea some problems. Last year Greg Bird got a very crappy projection (missed the 2016 year), a year after getting a very good projection. So I had him on my reserve as a 2nd, since his projection was well below a replacement level player. He would have been available in Mike's rule V idea. I dont like having potential impact players becoming available for other teams to have based on the wackiness that is associated with ZIPS (and baseball in general).
What about non-rostered players are eligible if they are over 25/26 and havent accrued any major league time yet? Each year ZIPS will project a handful of guys who would be useful rps/bench/utility guys.
This won't have GMs picking off budding young players who get regressed ZIPS (ZIPS is based on regression, so I can ensure there is more cases of this than just Bird), it wont give teams who have a crappy year another top pick, it wouldnt cut into the draft/free agency talent pool.
This would just allow teams to build more depth through XXX players, instead of signing some random RP or utility guy in free agency to a 1+1 deal, each team would have the option to draft a depth piece on an XXX deal, instead of a guaranteed V contract.
Where our draft could slightly emulate MLB Rule V draft is if a GM doesnt want to have their Rule V guy on their active roster, they must waive the player; if the player passes waivers they can be sent to the reserve, if another GM claims the player that GM will need to keep the player on their active roster.
I think this would poses a minimal increase in work for the committee, all that would be needed is a simple way to mark a rule V player on the roster spreadsheet, and an individual waiver wire not associated with release waivers or revocable waivers.
My two pennies.
|
|
|
Post by BrewCrewGuru on Jan 19, 2018 1:09:57 GMT -5
I believe that picks have more value here because they are a commodity that can be used to acquire something you truly want. Prospect value is completely subjective where as a good draft pick is going to be exactly what that GM wants it to be. I don't know if that's a flaw in the system or GMs just honestly placing more value on the hypothetical player that they are certain to want (via draft or another trade). The perceived value of draft picks might also be higher because our draft is so small. That wasn't really an accident though the end result might be more extreme than was intended.
With our roster sizes and our draft sizes, I'm no longer sure that forcing player movement is the answer. I've long been a proponent of smaller roster sizes in order to force GMs that acquire excessive numbers of picks to make roster decisions. Now that I've lost that battle, I'm very much against a Rule V type draft. I don't really think we have LARGE enough rosters to justify a Rule V draft.
I think the better answer is to add a round to Summer or Winter draft while continuing to increase the reserve roster size. I believe there will be a point where rosters are deep enough and seasoned enough that a Rule V style draft will make sense. I just don't believe now is that time.
Looking at the inflation of draft picks, maybe the correct solution is to deflate the value of those picks. The easiest way to do that is to add a 5th round to the Summer draft while also making 1st round picks protected with No Trade Clauses. Available picks in trade would be devalued because some amount of every GMs 1st round talent would be taken up by the 1st round of picks. Everything that makes trading picks valuable still applies, but there would be less inflation or expectation of value. Currently, none of the 2020 1st round picks have been traded. We can freeze those picks and implement that system.
I'm also on-board with using minor league players age 25 and up with little or no MLB experience as a way to supplement draft and free agency. I'd even be okay with this type of draft being a determined by a lottery rather than traditional standings (thereby eliminating bad teams get "too much" draft advantage). For players that will be mostly role players, I don't think we need to be sticklers about which team is drafting where. Just use a weighted lottery so bad teams have a better chance, but it's not guaranteed to be reverse standings every year.
Those are my bad ideas that I believe in.
|
|
|
Post by bluejaysgm on Jan 19, 2018 9:26:38 GMT -5
I'm also on-board with using minor league players age 25 and up with little or no MLB experience as a way to supplement draft and free agency. I'd even be okay with this type of draft being a determined by a lottery rather than traditional standings (thereby eliminating bad teams get "too much" draft advantage). For players that will be mostly role players, I don't think we need to be sticklers about which team is drafting where. Just use a weighted lottery so bad teams have a better chance, but it's not guaranteed to be reverse standings every year. This goes along with the suggestion I made of converting the winter draft to being a draft of players that are long time minor leaguers but have got a little bit of MLB service time or I'm even good with the idea of after so many years in the minors making them winter draft eligible. I would suggest a winter draft order be based on base cap # (before adding in traded money). Lowest base salary drafts first, etc.
|
|
|
Post by phillies17 on Jan 19, 2018 11:33:31 GMT -5
I'm open for anything that promotes more GM interaction and activity, mainly because I am not a big fan of multi-player solitaire games. To me, prospects are a commodity with a purpose and the goal is to win as many games as possible each season. Prospects are the fuel for that purpose, but they don't care about me, nor do they succeed or fail based on anything I do so I don't give a rats ass about them individually. They are replaceable, currently 5 a year, so if done right the pipeline should feed the real beast which is the 25 man roster.
If gaining talent on the front end has always produced some level of talent imbalance, maybe we should look deeper at helping balance from the other direction. Rule V reduces hoarding in real life as well as disperses some level of talent, we should look to emulate that in some form. Options and the players union reduce stashing, we should look to emulate that in some manner as well. I believe those are two of the biggest issues producing discussions in the time I've been here. I would also like something to reduce the value of talent, either through picks or roster size. Top end talent is what it is, I'm looking mainly at the other tiers that right now have a blackhole value where they are overpriced or don't have a comparable return value. Everyone looks for the superstar or the future hall of famer, but most teams win because they have more of the 2nd or 3rd tier guys or in this format the reverse matchup guy that exploits the sim to your advantage. It's this level of talent that I believe needs to be valued better.
As far as draft order goes, many leagues now have a lottery system. I'd have no problem with that for either or both drafts we have now if that softens the stance on any people having issues with the current draft system.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 4, 2019 8:13:40 GMT -5
the Off Season is here... my old account chimed in here, so its time to get this account going too.
Rule V implementation - players over picked age are available in a 2 round winter youngsters draft...
if you don't want to participate so be it.. its that simple.
|
|
|
Post by LA Angels GM on Nov 4, 2019 14:59:26 GMT -5
the Off Season is here... my old account chimed in here, so its time to get this account going too. Rule V implementation - players over picked age are available in a 2 round winter youngsters draft... if you don't want to participate so be it.. its that simple. I say yes to some type of Rule V draft.
|
|
|
Post by Elephanti! on Nov 4, 2019 15:42:06 GMT -5
A traditional rule 5 draft is impossible without 40 man rosters and options (my hobbyhorse). A weird too old to be drafted draft is alright I guess. I would be in favor of it if we eliminated the winter draft and replaced it with that. I would not like to see both.
|
|
|
Post by Pirates GM on Nov 4, 2019 17:12:18 GMT -5
A traditional rule 5 draft is impossible without 40 man rosters and options (my hobbyhorse). I agree. And honestly, they do 40-man/options in MLBSA, and it's a pain. It does increase the strategy and realism, but does not necessarily make the league more fun. On top of that, their Committee has to devote a TON of extra time to keeping track of it. The guys here already crush it time-wise as is. Nobody likes grinders more than me. Nobody. But, I also think the talent level would fall off in that type of draft. Rapidly. Prolly the first 5 guys would be ones who legitimately surprised and made quality MLB debuts. Picks 6-15 would be guys that could make it the following year. All the rest would be AAAA players that ZiPS hates. Ooh. I'm pretty passionate about keeping the Winter Draft. I think it adds a lot of excitement to the offseason. When trying new ideas, simpler is better. Keep the same rules, and make the Winter Draft 2 rounds instead of 1. No Winter picks can be traded. At 7 rounds for the year, that's still way less rounds than other similar Diamond Mind leagues, so we shouldn't see a dilution of talent. It will also give the weaker teams in the league and/or GMs who trade away a lot of picks 2 good chances to draft quality guys after being able to see a full season's worth of work. JIm
|
|
|
Post by BrewCrewGuru on Nov 4, 2019 23:49:28 GMT -5
You can read my post in this thread from 2 years ago and that still sums up my position. I still think the "offseason" for this league is important for Joe to recharge and have some much needed downtime while the rest of the committee gets us ready for next season. Having a simple 1 round Winter Draft seems like the best way to keep the baseball to a minimum while still having something to look forward to.
My hobbyhorse is still making Summer 1st round picks locked and unable to be traded while adding a 5th round to the Summer Draft. Again, my argument is simple, we still have 4 picks each year that have trade value while not allowing mismanaged teams (see Milwaukee) the ability to cripple themselves by trading 1st round picks. This also makes certain when team become un-owned that they still have their 1st round picks until such time that they have a GM again.
I like the idea of a pseudo Rule 5 draft with those "AAAA" types and older prospects. It appeals to me because of the low investment to have access to quality role players with potential upside. I also like it because it fills a role in this league without having to add the complexities that real life 40 man rosters would create.
I am in agreement with Jim's point that 7 total rounds across 3 different draft types is still way less overall work than other DMB leagues.
Again, not a single 2021 1st round pick has been traded. NOW would be the time to make some changes to benefit the longevity of our league. We can add the AAAA Draft to happen in February before Free Agency begins. Giving us the month of January to prepare for the draft and free agency. We run our regular Summer Draft for 2020 and then implement the 5 round Summer Draft in 2021. As we increase our roster size, these changes make a lot of sense. Sure, some of it is compromise, but I'd be really excited to see how these drafts work.
|
|
|
Post by Pirates GM on Nov 5, 2019 5:31:13 GMT -5
I feel like adding a totally new AAAA draft rather than adding a 2nd round to the Winter Draft would actually make MORE work for Joe and the Committee, but I’m in agreement with everything else you said. Well done my friend.
JIm
|
|
|
Post by Elephanti! on Nov 5, 2019 15:17:21 GMT -5
Nobody likes grinders more than me. Nobody. But, I also think the talent level would fall off in that type of draft. Rapidly. Prolly the first 5 guys would be ones who legitimately surprised and made quality MLB debuts. Picks 6-15 would be guys that could make it the following year. All the rest would be AAAA players that ZiPS hates. Oh I completely agree there; the talent level of such a draft would be terrible, and we would likely get a lot of passing.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 6, 2019 9:25:29 GMT -5
Nobody likes grinders more than me. Nobody. But, I also think the talent level would fall off in that type of draft. Rapidly. Prolly the first 5 guys would be ones who legitimately surprised and made quality MLB debuts. Picks 6-15 would be guys that could make it the following year. All the rest would be AAAA players that ZiPS hates. Oh I completely agree there; the talent level of such a draft would be terrible, and we would likely get a lot of passing. I do think it's a good idea to "force" GMs to make decisions. not having to start YOS clocks for any reason at all and waiting for a favorable projection is crap. the statement its correct about not having a 40 man roster and rule V rules. As for the talent level of the pool... you are describing the 2019 MLB Baltimore Orioles... and honestly, as a rebuilding team, filling a roster with those types of players at league minimum, then trading salary cap space for future value is about the only way to really get a rebuild jump started. I still think that 5 rounds of drafting isn't enough for a "Draft and See" league as this has been described. At least its not enough to more accurately set the value level of draft picks.
|
|
|
Post by LA Angels GM on Nov 6, 2019 13:00:27 GMT -5
For the record, after using a 40-man roster in MLBSA, I do think we could institute one here fairly easily and it wouldn't take too much more work on the committee. It would take work to get it all set up, for sure, but once it's up and running, it would just be checking some boxes on the spreadsheet to keep track of options.
Then, we could do an actual Rule V draft.
Without this, I would definitely be in favor of simply adding a round to either the winter or summer draft. Maybe add a round to both. I think we can all agree that the two most fun times in these leagues are the draft and free agency. I'm all for adding more fun.
|
|
|
Post by BrewCrewGuru on Nov 7, 2019 0:52:42 GMT -5
For the record, after using a 40-man roster in MLBSA, I do think we could institute one here fairly easily and it wouldn't take too much more work on the committee. It would take work to get it all set up, for sure, but once it's up and running, it would just be checking some boxes on the spreadsheet to keep track of options. Then, we could do an actual Rule V draft. Without this, I would definitely be in favor of simply adding a round to either the winter or summer draft. Maybe add a round to both. I think we can all agree that the two most fun times in these leagues are the draft and free agency. I'm all for adding more fun. I liked this post even though I am still against instituting a 40 man roster. I think the easiest thing that the committee could do as the "next step" is to add a round to both drafts. Jason makes an interesting point regarding the value of draft picks in a "draft and see" league. I'm going to give it more thought as it relates to my opinion that 1st round picks should not be available for trade. How does adding more rounds to either/both drafts change the value of 1st round picks and subsequent picks? It's probably something I should have gotten to sooner. There definitely needs to be a "clock" on the service time clock start. Might require a column of the spreadsheet to note year drafted. I realize that because players can be drafted at different stages of development that putting a 4 year "development clock" on a player might not be correct, something in that vein. A "MLB Ready Clock" of some kind seems reasonable. Can't stash players with 2 full service years of real MLB experience for free? This discussion is always interesting to me. I'd very much like to expand the draft/s. I'm fine with riding my hobbyhorse regarding protected 1st rounders for the rest of my life and I'll never be that upset if it never happens.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 7, 2019 7:15:50 GMT -5
I don't necessarily think that a formal 40 man roster is required, but I also don't think its all that difficult to manage. (even easier if you can get over the google hatred)
Maybe a "years in the minors" thing is a better way of handling it. number of Xs in the column represents the number of years you have to keep them in the minors. J2 guys = 6, draft HS = 5, Draft Coll = 4, Drafted from MLB minors = 3, then each year an X is removed, until activated. just an idea. I really don't like there being nothing to get players MLB "contracts" more and more MLB teams are seeing the windows of max productivity being younger and younger, Soto is 21 from christs sake. should Soto's NSBL owner be able to sit him in the minors for 3 more years until Zips maximizes projection? sorry, I think thats crap. As fans we complain about MLB teams manipulating service time. ok waiting 1 year until you get a workable projections, but 3?
as for locking in 1st round picks... I actually ok with that. 1st round picks should be high value. between 25-30% of the first round are previously drafted minor leaguers, so even though the risk in the first round is smaller than in other rounds, GMs have the option / ability to evaluate the risk themselves. In my experience in the league, last time, I just found even the value of 4th round picks to be too high. In other leagues I'm in with larger drafts there is far more movement of picks at the trade deadline, or in other trades. Some guys are really good at finding value late, collecting 6-8 round picks and spreading out the risk.
and as my esteemed college in Anaheim suggested, Drafting is one of the 2 best times of the year.
|
|
|
Post by Elephanti! on Nov 7, 2019 13:26:14 GMT -5
There definitely needs to be a "clock" on the service time clock start. Might require a column of the spreadsheet to note year drafted. I realize that because players can be drafted at different stages of development that putting a 4 year "development clock" on a player might not be correct, something in that vein. A "MLB Ready Clock" of some kind seems reasonable. Can't stash players with 2 full service years of real MLB experience for free? I hate this idea. I don't like weird half measures. If you want a clock, the best way is to do it with a 40 man roster and options -- have it mirror real life. If you don't want a 40 man roster and options, then we should stick to he current system. I am firmly against anything else that tries to promote prospect usage.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 7, 2019 14:53:54 GMT -5
There definitely needs to be a "clock" on the service time clock start. Might require a column of the spreadsheet to note year drafted. I realize that because players can be drafted at different stages of development that putting a 4 year "development clock" on a player might not be correct, something in that vein. A "MLB Ready Clock" of some kind seems reasonable. Can't stash players with 2 full service years of real MLB experience for free? I hate this idea. I don't like weird half measures. If you want a clock, the best way is to do it with a 40 man roster and options -- have it mirror real life. If you don't want a 40 man roster and options, then we should stick to he current system. I am firmly against anything else that tries to promote prospect usage. im good with a 40 man and options. I just thought I heard push back due to the "work" involved. I disagree, but... I can understand that time commitments can be tough. I have quite a bit of downtime / free time @ school (like now) so...
|
|
|
Post by Pirates GM on Nov 7, 2019 20:21:44 GMT -5
not having to start YOS clocks for any reason at all and waiting for a favorable projection is crap. Why would you start a player if his projection wasn't favorable? I would absolutely keep a guy like that on my reserve roster. No sense in paying him and burning a YOS if he isn't going to sim well for you. JIm
|
|
|
Post by Pirates GM on Nov 7, 2019 20:23:45 GMT -5
In my opinion, this logic is getting silly.
1. We're willing to go to the hassle (or rather, put the Committee through the hassle) of implementing 40-man rosters, just so we can have a Rule V draft where honestly less than 5 significant players are going to be selected.
2. Orrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr we can simply add another round to the Winter Draft, so everyone can pick new prospects who actually have upside.
I'm going with Option 2.
JIm
|
|
|
Post by phillies17 on Nov 8, 2019 8:47:18 GMT -5
I don't think we need to add all the effort of a 40 man with waivers and options. Everyone loves drafting and prospects so here is my proposal. Keep the roster count as is (don't expand it any more). Lock the first round of the summer draft, keep the 1st round of the winter draft locked. Add a 2nd round of the winter draft that is open for trading.
This prevents teams from hurting their future (1st round pick), a complaint I've seen from day 1. Adding another round with fixed rosters forces more roster management and waivers which acts as a quasi 40 man without the overhead. The new round maintains (and hopefully) reduces talent costs in trade. Back end roster players are vital yet typically too expensive to obtain in our current system.
|
|