Ten draft slots?

Rangers · Post by **Rangers** » Sun Dec 14, 2008 7:06 pm

Dodgers wrote:No no, that's what I was saying. We don't put OOPSS transactions after August 31st into the DMB database, so effectively there wouldn't be any way to clear out your sim roster and it wouldn't stop playoff teams from making moves.

Ah, right, good point. Aug 31/Sept 1 sounds good.

Padres · Post by **Padres** » Sun Dec 14, 2008 7:11 pm

Dodgers wrote:No no, that's what I was saying. We don't put OOPSS transactions after August 31st into the DMB database, so effectively there wouldn't be any way to clear out your sim roster and it wouldn't stop playoff teams from making moves.

Okay - you are correct now that I think about it ...

Dodgers · Post by **Dodgers** » Sun Dec 14, 2008 7:18 pm

JP's supposed to weigh in again sometimes after the Pats game, but it seems to me we are probably close enough to consensus to put it up to a vote.

Is it going to matter when we announce it? I'm thinking we should wait until the end of the draft so as not to theoretically change the value of any late picks that were traded. On the other hand, guys are going to be pissed if they release someone late in the draft they don't want to in order to get their 10th draftee and then we change the rule 2 days later.

Padres · Post by **Padres** » Sun Dec 14, 2008 7:24 pm

Dodgers wrote:JP's supposed to weigh in again sometimes after the Pats game, but it seems to me we are probably close enough to consensus to put it up to a vote.

Is it going to matter when we announce it? I'm thinking we should wait until the end of the draft so as not to theoretically change the value of any late picks that were traded. On the other hand, guys are going to be pissed if they release someone late in the draft they don't want to in order to get their 10th draftee and then we change the rule 2 days later.

I think consistent with the theme of "Transparency in government"we should throw it open for discussion and vote as soon as we have a made a decision ...

It likely will slow the draft down ...

Nationals · Post by **Nationals** » Sun Dec 14, 2008 8:12 pm

The best thing to do is to announce it as soon as possible, lest we stir up any more bees than we have to.

Rangers · Post by **Rangers** » Sun Dec 14, 2008 8:29 pm

Mets wrote:
Dodgers wrote:JP's supposed to weigh in again sometimes after the Pats game, but it seems to me we are probably close enough to consensus to put it up to a vote.

Is it going to matter when we announce it? I'm thinking we should wait until the end of the draft so as not to theoretically change the value of any late picks that were traded. On the other hand, guys are going to be pissed if they release someone late in the draft they don't want to in order to get their 10th draftee and then we change the rule 2 days later.
I think consistent with the theme of "Transparency in government"we should throw it open for discussion and vote as soon as we have a made a decision ...

It likely will slow the draft down ...

Jim,

Are you thinking that we should say something like "exco is about to vote on this issue, here's what is being suggested"? I do think that we have been a little too inconsistent in terms of how we handle public discussion on issues we're looking at, not because of any underhanded intent, but just because a lot of the things we've tackled have been pretty organic and impromptu.

Probably the biggest thing that we've caught grief for, particularly from Bren since he has come back, is how much public discussion we seek on issues. I don't have anything to urge, other than that we want to make it clear that there is no agenda or anything, but I think that we might be able to establish a little more consistency on that, one way or the other.

As far a the timing of this rule change, if it happens, there will be some complaints about it screwing up guys' plans to a certain degree. However, if we make guys continue to have their roster 25/10/15 until later in the spring (after the DB is out or just before the season or whatever the consensus is), I think those complaints are largely moot. We have to get our rosters to where they included ten draftees for a certain amount of time after the draft anyway.

Cardinals · Post by **Cardinals** » Sun Dec 14, 2008 8:46 pm

The only "pro" i see for the 10 draft slots is that the rest of your roster is sort of like your 40 man roster, which mimics the MLB in that way I guess. That said, we don't have a rule V draft or anything like that, and a lot of other stuff the MLB has, so the perception that we need 40/10 is sort of silly.

I'm fine with some sort of 50/25 format, but I don't think you should be forced to have a minimum of 25 active players in the database - should injury hit significantly. We do need to make sure that one catcher is a minimum though. Aaron, you brought up how it "cost" Lape to be losing all those games with passed balls. Did it really cost him improving his draft stock? That wasn't his intention at the time I'm sure, given it was in April, but for a team that's destined to cellar dwell, it really isn't hurting anybody to be losing games.

Also, with a rule that has been there for the entire life of the league, we definitely need to poll and have the rest of the league discuss this. This cannot be a decision made just by ExCo. The other members should have a chance to discuss this and bring up points for and against - and if there's enough voices agreeing with these ideas in this thread, then yes, I say we go ahead and change it up. But I wouldn't do a thing or support anything without getting everybody else's input on something like this.

Rangers · Post by **Rangers** » Sat Jan 10, 2009 7:35 pm

So are we going with a league vote for both of these issues? If so, I will post a vote on the 25 man minimum first and then the draft slots after that to create some separation in the issues. If I recall correctly a league vote requires two-thirds to actually change a rule (btw, I've always believed that should be 60%, but that's a different issue).

Astros · Post by **Astros** » Sat Jan 10, 2009 7:41 pm

Might as well

Padres · Post by **Padres** » Sat Jan 10, 2009 8:41 pm

Tigers wrote:So are we going with a league vote for both of these issues? If so, I will post a vote on the 25 man minimum first and then the draft slots after that to create some separation in the issues. If I recall correctly a league vote requires two-thirds to actually change a rule (btw, I've always believed that should be 60%, but that's a different issue).

The current rule is: Each franchise will field a team from their 25 man roster. Each team is expected to maintain a minimum of 20 active players at all times, 10 position players and 10 pitchers.

Can't find any reference to the 2/3rds ...

Dodgers · Post by **Dodgers** » Sat Jan 10, 2009 10:45 pm

I thought we talked about the 2/3 requirement at some point and once it was calculated out with the ExCo required to support in order to vote on something it made sense or something like that?