|
Post by Yanks27Sox9 on Feb 15, 2012 20:43:01 GMT -5
Oakland is possibly signing ManRam today too... and moneyball can go spin off cespedes for prospects after 50 games, lol.
|
|
|
Post by Smokedawg on Feb 15, 2013 2:33:17 GMT -5
I would like to propose a rule change (obviously too late for this year, but...)
Any minor league player who is promoted to the major league roster on or before the 2/15 deadline must stay on the major league roster for the first 14 days of the season
|
|
|
Post by fondybadger on Feb 15, 2013 17:39:01 GMT -5
While I understand why you are proposing the rule change, I don't think that rule works too well for the league as a whole. Too many guys win and lose jobs in spring training.
Best rule I can think of to limit "promotions" is to make the player at least be in yahoo's universe.
Or going a completely different way... open up trading before cuts (as every team should end the year with the same amount of players) and/or allow every team to draft three minor league rounds BEFORE cuts are do on 3/1.
|
|
|
Post by metsjetsknicks on Feb 17, 2013 12:54:13 GMT -5
Guess I'll chime in as a new guy.
I definitely am in favor of more discussion on how to balance things a bit more. Its clear that I inherited a bottom feeder but I think my perspective can add some value because it is a fresh set of eyes and I do have experience in keepers leagues with a "minors" system (not just fantasy baseball).
1.) So far I think a rule on promotions should be discussed. Whether that be limit promotions to x times per year, 15-day waiting rule, or limit to Yahoo! eligible players. Something should be set in stone so that there is no room for misinterpretation. Grey area will always lend itself to abuse.
One of the leagues that I am in that works well: Has a 15 day rule and also limits GmL's from being promoted and demoted 1 only if they start the year on the ML roster. A second demotion sends them to the waiver wire.
2.) The free GmL keepers is pretty common across keepers leagues but what do I find unique is that there is no limit on free keepers and its effect on your overall minors system. I play in one other baseball league and two other basketball leagues and all three have a set limit on number of keepers, free keepers and minors system. In other words, every team goes into the draft with the same number of players. For ML keepers the number is set at a standard amount and free keepers & minors are lumped into one pool at a set amount. Having 10 GmLs and 10 minors is the same as having 20 GmLs or 20 minors. The limit is set at 20 (or whatever number) and managers have to manage accordingly.
This forces managers to be a bit more strategic on how they manage their roster. Do you keep a fringe GmL and throw a top prospect back into the pool? Or do you trade that fringe GmL and keep the prospect?
Not having a limit on the number of players in the minors system (free keepers and minors) creates an in-balance for the draft and in my opinion makes it harder for the guys at the bottom to rebuild the roster. The talent heavy owners really have no reason to trade any of their guys.
I know I am new and probably bringing up ideas that may have already been discussed before but I still think its important to bring a different perspective and have meaningful discussion on the rules for the sake of the new guys and the guys that have been around for a while.
|
|
|
Post by Coffee's 4 Closers Only on Feb 17, 2013 15:55:59 GMT -5
Glad to see this discussion. And thanks for your perspective, I like your feedback. And for what it's worth, everyone is equal here so your views are certainly welcome even if you're "the new guy."
I would support the rule change. Fondy, I understand your point about players possibly being sent down to start the year, but in my view that would be the chance you take when thinking of promoting the players. Once promoted I think they should stay promoted and the clock begins. Fondy, you promoted a ton of players this year and I think there should be risk associated with it.
I also like the idea of limiting promoted GmL players. It would add additional players to the ML draft pool and increase speculation on each since most would likely be fringe GmL keepers. I support any rule change that would make our decision-making more strategic. I also like the possibility of allowing bottom-feeding teams the ability to improve faster.
This is a good discussion.
|
|
|
Post by Yanks27Sox9 on Feb 17, 2013 16:21:20 GMT -5
good stuff, guys. i'll come back to this later w/ more.
the 1st part is a simple fix, and can be rectified heading into 2014...by placing a limit on 'premature' promotions to 1 player that can be argued has a fair shot at making the bigs the coming year.
the 2nd part is interesting. see it both ways. think the market (the waiver wire like the stock market) regulates itself...and will use my team as an example of that later. but also think a limit definitely has possibilities, and should be looked at thoroughly.
|
|
|
Post by fondybadger on Feb 17, 2013 18:08:52 GMT -5
Thanks for chiming in guys. I don't think I would like limiting the number of GMLs being kept. I feel as if it would take away from "developing" minor league players. Also, we are already being limited to gml's based on roster spots. I think the strategy on who to keep is already there, as we are giving up draft picks to keep the player. It makes no sense to keep a gml each season if better players are available in the draft. Need to weigh the current year against having them as a free keeper two seasons away too.
This is my second league with almost the same rules (so I have about 12 years combined between the two leagues), and I have personally cut Justin Verlander, Ian Kinsler, and Miguel Montero as gmls thinking better players are draft eligible. At the same time I kept Homer Bailey on my roster for two seasons hoping he would amount to something.
If you are looking for more strategy about which players to keep, starting next season and especially in 2015, as guys graduate from GMLs almost all our teams are going to have a tougher time coming up with our 8 keepers. I fulling expect that Yanks will be keeping Strasburg as one of his, I'll be keeping Stanton, Posey, Trout ect will all be kept, making the major league draft even more important.
|
|
|
Post by metsjetsknicks on Feb 18, 2013 5:57:56 GMT -5
Definitely appreciate the feedback guys.
I don't think my recommendation was to limit free keepers necessarily but rather bring up how not having a limit of some sort creates an in-balance in the draft. I am in favor of everyone going into the draft with the same number of "assets".
Free keepers are an asset for all teams as are the minors. I think where I see some area of improvement is having each team go into the draft with the same number of "assets" to keep the talent pool in balance.
For example:
I have no problem with a team having 10 GmL's going into the draft while another team has 4 GmL's. There are tons of reasons why there could be a difference in the number of GmL's per team entering the draft. What I do see creates an imbalance is when those same two teams also enter the draft with a full minor league system (15 players) because now at this point you have one team with 25 assets and one team with 19 assets.
The stock market analogy was a good one because its pretty descriptive of how teams get better in this league: thru trades. But trading should be zero sum game where both sides get "equal" value. When there are teams with more assets than others, one side needs to get more value or else the trade won't get done.
I don't necessarily see a way to get better and compete organically (via the draft, free agent wire) unless you want to be on a multi-year rebuilding plan. And I guess that is where there can be some improvement.
How can teams get better organically for free (via the draft, waiver wire)? I think the answer is to have all of the teams enter the draft with the same number of assets or create a pool of all assets.
I think there's multiple ways to do this but my idea would be to either:
- Limit GmL's & minors to the same player pool and set a limit on number of keepers. So for example 25 players. This way, managers have to strategically manage their roster and each team has the same number of "assets." Do you load up on GmL's and make a run for the upcoming season or do you sell them for prospects to build? Combining the pool and setting a limit would also facilitate more trading prior to 2/15 keeper declaration similar to the Majors keeper declaration because any "asset" over 25 players would get lost to the draft.
- The other simple way would be to have one keeper declaration date and combine the player pools into one pre-season draft (keep the June draft obviously). What this does is allow managers to choose where to spend their picks. A manager may have to decide whether to build for the future or make a run for the upcoming season. Do you draft a quality ML in the first round or do you go with Jorge Soler who may not be ready for a couple of years? The same draft pool forces managers to make strategic decisions. A rebuilding team would have the option to use its early round picks on highly touted minors players while the rest of the league drafts for 2013. In many ways this is done now except in order to accomplish this you must trade with another team (For ex: I traded a ml pick for Alen Hansen).
Pure reliance on trading to get better favors those who have the most assets in the current system and so my position is that having a limit on keepers or finding ways to balance the pool of available players makes the league more strategic. As it stands some teams are the Marlins and some are the Yankees (in terms of assets) which is fine during the season but I am more in favor of having teams enter the draft on equal footing and having teams evolve into rebuilders and contenders over the course of the season rather entering keeper declaration that way.
|
|
|
Post by Yanks27Sox9 on Feb 18, 2013 14:30:11 GMT -5
my comp took a dump last night...and i'm fighting thru this morning, as it's taking a minute or two to simply load a fuckin page...but i do mean to respond in greater detail, as this is a discussion absolutely worth having.
technically, the way i see it...other than what Fondy did (or typically does with his roster)...we do start with the same # of assets, since a draft pick is an asset.
8 keepers X GmLs 25-8-X = MLB draft picks (so if there are 7 GmLs, there are obviously 10 draft picks)
Also, minus June taking us to 20, there are 15 prospects/minor leaguers...though pre-draft that should be a combination of prospects and picks as well that equals 15.
Fondy, as an example, will exploit every grey area available...and creating temporary extra assets (i agree) is blatantly unfair, and against the spirit of things/competition. That said, it will be corrected moving into next year.
But also, there are other "market forces" in play. Fondy mentioned one of them. It can take time...but yes, I'll be keeping Strasburg next year...as an example...which will force me to release a top keeper into the draft. Starlin Castro will make me do the same thing the following year. Considering all 12 teams, it'll start as a trickle...but really take off moving forward. There's also the MLB draft and depth. Hard to see now...but Teeed drafting 1st every round, and me last every round, will bring us closer together. It'll take more to equate us, obviously, but this is a step in the process. There's also the waiver wire, and competing during the season. I've had to drop plenty of GmLs mid-season, because there were more productive option on the wire...and I needed those players to compete. In other words, i couldn't wait for them to pan out. Know I did it with Viciedo, but wish I had him now. Think Beachy was another, pre-injury and pre-solid performer. In any case, there are lots of situations that come up that force an owner to make those tough decisions...if they're competing, that is.
anyhow, will come back to this later. and hopefully my comp will cooperate. i do agree we need to keep things as fair as possible. but i don't agree not counting draft picks as assets. yes, it can be a challenge to rebuild. it takes some time, patience, good drafting and trades...but it can be done. in this league's predecessor, they gave me the worst team. had the 1st pick of the 1st round, and they even drafted me some ridiculous POS player before handing it over to me...leaving the solid keepers for themselves. but via trades/etc, i won their league in 2 seasons...with these rules...and after being ass-raped by Fondy in my 1st trade, lol. (he's a serial offender, hehe.)
there are also some owners who'll get themselves in trouble, entering deeper waters. like a bad investment, there's nothing i can do to control that. we all make bad decisions at times, myself included. anyways, i'm rambling now...taking care of other things at home...but promise to remain in the discussion. my honest goal (which may be unattainable and too idealistic, as I've never really encountered it) is to have 12 competitive/healthy teams. things change, like Scarf's old team going from 2nd place to the bottom third, but you guys know what i mean.
|
|
|
Post by Yanks27Sox9 on Feb 19, 2013 3:01:32 GMT -5
i apologize, guys. it's probably pretty obvious how pissed off I am by things today. but it's my fault for allowing a cheater to prosper via another loophole...which makes even the simple shit like maintaining proboards a living hell for me. there is NO justification for this crap, and it definitely will be fixed heading into the next season. it's not the trades, per se...it's what was done (without a doubt, planned out) to make all of this BS possible. sucks the 'life' right outta things, personally speaking.
|
|
|
Post by metsjetsknicks on Feb 19, 2013 10:57:27 GMT -5
my comp took a dump last night...and i'm fighting thru this morning, as it's taking a minute or two to simply load a fuckin page...but i do mean to respond in greater detail, as this is a discussion absolutely worth having. technically, the way i see it...other than what Fondy did (or typically does with his roster)...we do start with the same # of assets, since a draft pick is an asset. 8 keepers X GmLs 25-8-X = MLB draft picks (so if there are 7 GmLs, there are obviously 10 draft picks) Also, minus June taking us to 20, there are 15 prospects/minor leaguers...though pre-draft that should be a combination of prospects and picks as well that equals 15. Fondy, as an example, will exploit every grey area available...and creating temporary extra assets (i agree) is blatantly unfair, and against the spirit of things/competition. That said, it will be corrected moving into next year. But also, there are other "market forces" in play. Fondy mentioned one of them. It can take time...but yes, I'll be keeping Strasburg next year...as an example...which will force me to release a top keeper into the draft. Starlin Castro will make me do the same thing the following year. Considering all 12 teams, it'll start as a trickle...but really take off moving forward. There's also the MLB draft and depth. Hard to see now...but Teeed drafting 1st every round, and me last every round, will bring us closer together. It'll take more to equate us, obviously, but this is a step in the process. There's also the waiver wire, and competing during the season. I've had to drop plenty of GmLs mid-season, because there were more productive option on the wire...and I needed those players to compete. In other words, i couldn't wait for them to pan out. Know I did it with Viciedo, but wish I had him now. Think Beachy was another, pre-injury and pre-solid performer. In any case, there are lots of situations that come up that force an owner to make those tough decisions...if they're competing, that is. anyhow, will come back to this later. and hopefully my comp will cooperate. i do agree we need to keep things as fair as possible. but i don't agree not counting draft picks as assets. yes, it can be a challenge to rebuild. it takes some time, patience, good drafting and trades...but it can be done. in this league's predecessor, they gave me the worst team. had the 1st pick of the 1st round, and they even drafted me some ridiculous POS player before handing it over to me...leaving the solid keepers for themselves. but via trades/etc, i won their league in 2 seasons...with these rules...and after being ass-raped by Fondy in my 1st trade, lol. (he's a serial offender, hehe.) there are also some owners who'll get themselves in trouble, entering deeper waters. like a bad investment, there's nothing i can do to control that. we all make bad decisions at times, myself included. anyways, i'm rambling now...taking care of other things at home...but promise to remain in the discussion. my honest goal (which may be unattainable and too idealistic, as I've never really encountered it) is to have 12 competitive/healthy teams. things change, like Scarf's old team going from 2nd place to the bottom third, but you guys know what i mean. While I agree a ML draft pick is an asset, it is not equal to a minors player or GmL. The value of a GmL is clearly greater than an mlb draft pick, if not managers would not forgo their picks in a draft to keep players. The pool of talent is different for each, so I guess my point was that without limits, managers enter the draft on different playing fields. If that is by design that's cool, I was just offering my initial thoughts on league strategy and design.
|
|
|
Post by fondybadger on Feb 26, 2013 18:13:07 GMT -5
I'd like to bring up a rules amendment...
Currently, if we trade for a guy between 2/15-3/1 he must be kept on a major league roster. I would like to make an exception to that rule that if the player suffers a major injury before 3/1 that keeping him is no longer a necessity.
Major injury = likely out for half the season or more
Commissioner is the one to decide if it is a "major" injury
Not a situation we have experienced before, but an issue that popped in my head when reading about Fernando Rodney's latest appearance.
|
|
|
Post by Yanks27Sox9 on Feb 27, 2013 2:03:13 GMT -5
I'd like to bring up a rules amendment... Currently, if we trade for a guy between 2/15-3/1 he must be kept on a major league roster. I would like to make an exception to that rule that if the player suffers a major injury before 3/1 that keeping him is no longer a necessity. Major injury = likely out for half the season or more Commissioner is the one to decide if it is a "major" injury Not a situation we have experienced before, but an issue that popped in my head when reading about Fernando Rodney's latest appearance. the commissioner's office will take this under careful consideration.
|
|
|
Post by metsjetsknicks on Feb 27, 2013 5:08:58 GMT -5
I'd like to bring up a rules amendment... Currently, if we trade for a guy between 2/15-3/1 he must be kept on a major league roster. I would like to make an exception to that rule that if the player suffers a major injury before 3/1 that keeping him is no longer a necessity. Major injury = likely out for half the season or more Commissioner is the one to decide if it is a "major" injury Not a situation we have experienced before, but an issue that popped in my head when reading about Fernando Rodney's latest appearance. This would be too difficult to police and put up for debate. It should always be buyer beware in the trade market because in your example the seller gets penalized. Can't have a return policy on trades. The simple solution is to push the keeper deadline back, closer to the end of spring training. 3/1 is too soon, a lot can happen in a month of spring training injury-wise. Since we were on the topic of competitive balance earlier, I propose just having one keeper deadline for both majors and minors players later on in the season (say March 15th for example). I also would like to see one draft with all available players (any player signed to an mlb team) eligible. This accomplishes numerous things: 1. It simplifies the draft process and requires a minimal amount of management, both for commish and the owners. 2. Eliminates the trading period between the minors keeper deadline and major keeper deadline where stronger teams leverage their assets at the expense of those seeking to rebuild. Much of the trading here is marginal and could be accomplished during a regular trading period with 1 deadline. 3. Competitive Balance: Keeper leagues are about competitive balance from year to year. One draft adds an additional layer of strategy and balances the playing field for rebuilding teams vs. competing teams. A rebuilding team could choose to take 3 minors players with their first 3 picks and a competing team would have to decide to push all in and draft contributing players or a mix of talent. Because of the no-limit on free keepers I think one draft balances the league significantly. As it stands now the league operates in two structures. A dynasty and a keeper league in one. The minors and free keepers system is more like a dynasty league for fantasy-relevant MLB players with less than 4 years of service. The 8 MLB keepers are the traditional keeper format. One draft levels the playing field and forces more competition amongst owners which is what keeper leagues are designed for. Just my .02 cents.
|
|
|
Post by fondybadger on Feb 27, 2013 9:58:57 GMT -5
I'd like to bring up a rules amendment... Currently, if we trade for a guy between 2/15-3/1 he must be kept on a major league roster. I would like to make an exception to that rule that if the player suffers a major injury before 3/1 that keeping him is no longer a necessity. Major injury = likely out for half the season or more Commissioner is the one to decide if it is a "major" injury Not a situation we have experienced before, but an issue that popped in my head when reading about Fernando Rodney's latest appearance. This would be too difficult to police and put up for debate. It should always be buyer beware in the trade market because in your example the seller gets penalized. Can't have a return policy on trades. Two things. 1) I am not saying the trade should be voided. For example, lets say you traded a 3rd round pick for Joe Nathan on 2/15. On 2/26 it's announced he needs Tommy John and is out for the year. As the rules stand, he would still have to be one of your eight keepers for the season. What I was suggesting is that the team who acquired the asset would no longer be forced to keep the player as one of their 8 keepers. Obviously, they could if they wanted too. The trade would still stand. I would have still gotten the 3rd round pick, but you could choose to keep someone besides Nathan. Was just thinking it would be one hell of a nut shot to not only lose the assets in the trade, but then be forced to carry the dead weight. 2) There's a rule that if a trade is pending and a player involved in the trade is involved in a major injury, the trade is automatically voided (can be reprocessed if both parties still desire).
|
|
|
Post by smith1051 on Feb 27, 2013 10:39:48 GMT -5
This would be too difficult to police and put up for debate. It should always be buyer beware in the trade market because in your example the seller gets penalized. Can't have a return policy on trades. Two things. 1) I am not saying the trade should be voided. For example, lets say you traded a 3rd round pick for Joe Nathan on 2/15. On 2/26 it's announced he needs Tommy John and is out for the year. As the rules stand, he would still have to be one of your eight keepers for the season. What I was suggesting is that the team who acquired the asset would no longer be forced to keep the player as one of their 8 keepers. Obviously, they could if they wanted too. The trade would still stand. I would have still gotten the 3rd round pick, but you could choose to keep someone besides Nathan. Was just thinking it would be one hell of a nut shot to not only lose the assets in the trade, but then be forced to carry the dead weight. 2) There's a rule that if a trade is pending and a player involved in the trade is involved in a major injury, the trade is automatically voided (can be reprocessed if both parties still desire). K-Rod says HI!
|
|
|
Post by fondybadger on Feb 27, 2013 12:30:28 GMT -5
Two things. 1) I am not saying the trade should be voided. For example, lets say you traded a 3rd round pick for Joe Nathan on 2/15. On 2/26 it's announced he needs Tommy John and is out for the year. As the rules stand, he would still have to be one of your eight keepers for the season. What I was suggesting is that the team who acquired the asset would no longer be forced to keep the player as one of their 8 keepers. Obviously, they could if they wanted too. The trade would still stand. I would have still gotten the 3rd round pick, but you could choose to keep someone besides Nathan. Was just thinking it would be one hell of a nut shot to not only lose the assets in the trade, but then be forced to carry the dead weight. 2) There's a rule that if a trade is pending and a player involved in the trade is involved in a major injury, the trade is automatically voided (can be reprocessed if both parties still desire). K-Rod says HI! Wil Myers and the draft pick that turned into Gerritt Cole say hi.
|
|
|
Post by Yanks27Sox9 on Feb 27, 2013 15:46:04 GMT -5
back on point. (and the injury thing isn't a big deal. if that happened to come up, between 2/15 & 3/1, i'd probably make an exception anyways.)
but there are 2 potential directions...
1) another "fondy" amendment, limiting the premature promotions on 2/15...and limiting the ability to create (and deal) extra assets. (woven into this can be the injury stuff, or anything related to the time period between 2/15 & 3/1.)
or...
2) change things so that all rosters are due on 3/1...meaning minor league cuts, any GmL changes, and the 8 keepers are due all at once...all before the trading season can begin.
|
|
|
Post by cubsker on Mar 25, 2013 11:29:47 GMT -5
seems weird that you can pick up an unsigned free agent from waivers but you couldn't have drafted that same guy.
|
|
|
Post by Yanks27Sox9 on Mar 25, 2013 13:16:55 GMT -5
seems weird that you can pick up an unsigned free agent from waivers but you couldn't have drafted that same guy. i know...didn't write, or edit, that part. but there's nothing that says you can't pick up an unsigned guy on the wire though.
|
|
|
Post by metsjetsknicks on Mar 26, 2013 19:12:56 GMT -5
seems weird that you can pick up an unsigned free agent from waivers but you couldn't have drafted that same guy. i know...didn't write, or edit, that part. but there's nothing that says you can't pick up an unsigned guy on the wire though. I recommend a vote on that. Some rules like this do not allow for a balanced league.
|
|
|
Post by Yanks27Sox9 on Mar 28, 2013 2:26:12 GMT -5
back on point. (and the injury thing isn't a big deal. if that happened to come up, between 2/15 & 3/1, i'd probably make an exception anyways.) but there are 2 potential directions... 1) another "fondy" amendment, limiting the premature promotions on 2/15...and limiting the ability to create (and deal) extra assets. (woven into this can be the injury stuff, or anything related to the time period between 2/15 & 3/1.) or... 2) change things so that all rosters are due on 3/1...meaning minor league cuts, any GmL changes, and the 8 keepers are due all at once...all before the trading season can begin. so to keep track... we've potentially got the issue/choice above...if we don't remain with the status quo, that is...and also how to treat unsigned players, during the draft and on the wire.
|
|
|
Post by Yanks27Sox9 on Mar 28, 2013 2:36:28 GMT -5
i know...didn't write, or edit, that part. but there's nothing that says you can't pick up an unsigned guy on the wire though. I recommend a vote on that. Some rules like this do not allow for a balanced league. btw...the thing i want most is a balanced, healthy league. that's what the guy who created this wanted as well. it may be idealistic and probably even impossible...but from my experience, the most significant problem preventing that has always been an owner or two...in any league...not the rules, per se. in other words, there's no way to completely protect against an owner fucking up his team...ie: stupidity...or conversely, an owner getting over on another team, which we all try to do @ times, at least to varying extents. i'm hopeful we've got a solid group in place. but if you look at the history posted here, it's pretty obvious why some owners bailed on their teams. intentions were most likely good...yet there's a clear reason why rebuilds are necessary...again, in every league.
|
|
|
Post by metsjetsknicks on Mar 29, 2013 17:22:31 GMT -5
I don't know the history of the league so I can't really comment on whether or not it was driven by the rules or a few bad apples but I will say this:
The more rules and restrictions that you have in place for players to manage their roster, the less likely it is that a team will be able to rebuild their roster effectively. The rules cannot police ineffective management, because that is subjective. Every league has a few guys who are not always as into the league as others. You would hope that the entry fee would limit that. But I will say that in keeper/dynasty leagues, guys will also bail if the rules/dynamics of the league prevent them from competing (especially if they took over a team). Again not saying that is the case for this league but just in general.
Also, you can't protect managers from making "idiot moves" because that is an opinion, especially in trades (both parties will feel like they got the better deal). I think the best approach is a league vote, to have one or two people make the final say on a deal is based too much in opinion. I think this is important for the guys looking to rebuild. The league is unbalanced and the rules on GmL's make it necessary for rebuilding teams to give up more than they receive via trades.
In any case, I don't want to be that guy that complains about rules and want to change everything, but since I'm new here are the rules that I think could be put up for vote to encourage more balance:
1.) Keeper Limit for GmL's.
Why? Dynasty leagues operate without limits. Keeper leagues are meant to encourage roster turnover every year. GmL's become overvalued because of their roster flexibility (you can keep as many as you want). This has already been discussed and seems like the league was designed this way but a limit would encourage player movement via trades before the keeper deadline. If there is limit, guys won't keep marginal GmL's and again allows for a deeper and more interesting draft.
2.) Have two drafts. One in June, One in March. All unkept players available in the March draft, all 2012 draftees and international signings eligible in the June.
Why? To follow up the Kyle Lohse situation, guys need to be able to take risks. If a rebuilding team has no shot to compete and wants to take a gamble on a guy like Lohse, they should be able to. Likewise, if you eliminate the minors draft in February, you allow managers to take risks and build value. Because there is no limit on GmL's, minors prospects hold more value in this league. You need to put all players in one pool and allow guys to make a decision on where to spend their picks. Do you go young to rebuild or proven to compete? When the players are in one pool, players choose how to build their teams and are allowed to take risks.
With the separate drafts, there is no incentive to be strategic in Feb./March. It keeps the strong teams strong and the weak teams weak. I say this again because GmLs are unlimited for each team, so the June draft > Feb. draft > ML draft in terms of value. All assets are not equal, which is okay in a robust keeper league but if you combine the ML draft and Feb. draft, you increase roster balance because guys actually have to make strategic choices on how to build their roster.
3.) One Keeper deadline
Already discussed previously.
Again just wanted to share my views on what I think encourages more balance, hope others can chime in.
|
|
|
Post by Smokedawg on Mar 30, 2013 8:33:34 GMT -5
I think you're looking at this slightly off. First off, technically speaking, there is a GmL limit. You could only have 17 max. That's obviously a smart ass answer but it leads to my next point - people put way too much value into GmL status and it has caused the draft to be deeper IMO rather than weaker
I got Tim Hudson with the 96th pick. Counting all the keepers and GmLs he was essentially the 280th player to be put on someone's roster. ESPN has him ranked 164th on their top 300 for this year. That's some solid value.
I do think there should be one keeper deadline or at least once minor leaguers are promoted to the major league roster they have to stay there for the first 14 days of the season. Would eliminate people massaging their rosters to try and get extra picks/roster spots they don't actually have.
And personally I hate the idea of one draft - I like the three drafts as they are. Each has its own strategy.
|
|