IBC

Dodgers wrote:I really don't think locking the first round is going to do anything. If guys aren't trading their picks before the draft, they'll trade the players they take afterwards (maybe not the best example but JB just traded for Chamberlain). Stopping trading of the pick is not going to stop the players that go at that position from getting traded, so why not allow trading? I'd rather have the #2 pick going to JB in exchange for solid talent, where he has to take a chance on someone who might not work out...say Matt Bush for instance

I disagree completely. Locking the first round has nothing but positive benefits when I look at the scenario. Even if the GM turns right around and trades the player they drafted at the end of the draft. There is always a degree of uncertainty when you trade a draft pick that has no "defined" value to it. We came up with a rule in this league to lessen the value of prospects below AA because of the risk and uncertainty attached to them. Its even WORSE when you are trading picks that hold no real value. If we allow full trading of picks, then this league should also SERIOUSLY consider doing away with that silly rule(especially when its gotten in the way so many times this year alone) and we should really start trusting our talent judgement abilities and keep moving to a "free market".

As I was saying before getting sidetracked, locking down the first round has nothing but benefits - Even if the GM trades that player immedietly following the draft. Remember, MLB has changed their signing date, so that takes a huge element of guess work out of it for GM's, as we know for sure, who is and who isn't going to be drafted. This helps things, but, still having no set or defined value to a pick, means potentially selling short.

Forcing the pick at least makes the GM make the pick, think about the pick, hold onto the player(if even for just a couple weeks), and come to a thought out conclusion about whatever their decision may be, isntead of just shooting from the hip and making a potentially disasterous move.

Its also less work on whoever keeps track of the flury of picks being shuffled around from team to team. Less picks that move around = Less work, less things to keep track of, etc.

It gives the TRC defined value to look at and evaluate, instead of hypotheticals. Take as much of the "guess work" out of judging perceived value as possible.

As I said before, there is still PLENTY of very good value a team can trade for from picks 30 on, as has been proven many times - dont believe me? Go look at previous year's draft results.

Astros wrote:For those scared of the "worse" teams getting worse; when JB traded for the #1 pick a few years ago he gave up Han Ram and another pretty good prospect that eludes me. So I don't really this as necessary to lock the first round.

And if you remember, there was a good time when HanRam looked like a complete "bust" - his value diminished quite a bit, perhaps the reason the BoSox gave him up so easily. There was certainly a time when he had some big question marks surrounding him. More uncertainty

For every good result, I am positive I can name a just as bad result. i.e. Maels "Fucking" Rodriguez, as he will forever be known as in this league, my own decision to part with Miggy Tejada so I could land Ryan Wagner & J.J. Hardy. I had my reasons, and took a gamble - as I'm sure Bren did too. But it just goes to show you, a team could sell off a huge chip for a top pick, to get what they need(at the time, I perceived that fixing a bad bullpen would propel me to the playoffs, as my pen was attrocious..) or they believe they need to put them over the top. Its not always "best talent" taken.. sometimes a wrench is thrown into the works. Would I have done the same move again, that I did then? Hell no, I learned big from that move. It still could have worked out, had I had the time to be more patient with Hardy.. but.. thats a story for another time.

I see the rich keep getting richer - and while thats not a huge concern for myself.. well for those who want parity, this should be given more thought. Rarely, is MLB talent of great quality given up for draft picks - when picks are traded, its for a bunch of prospects, etc. JP, you pointed to JB giving up HanRam, etc. Well, of course.. he can easily give that up, without a ding or huge consequence to his team, because of the talent depth loaded on the roster. He then lands the "flavor of the month" or "elite" talent, and pedels that off(eventually) for even more talent. And he upped his position in the draft considerably to get a consensus top talent while giving up, in all reality, very little to nothing of consequence to him.

I fully understand the uncertainty with prospects, gauging them, the time it takes to develope, their individual development curves, injuries, etc... But I really fail to see how forcing a team to take their 1st pick is anything bad. Even if they turn right around and trade said player when the draft is done. At least then, it forces the GM to think and perhaps even re-evaluate what they might do if they had to sit on it for a couple weeks.

Again, I see nothing but positives to this scenario, and absolutely no downside to it. Its simply a safety net, and takes out some of the uncertainty. How is that a bad thing?

If we are to allow trading of all picks, especially when they have no defined or attached value, and we as a league sincerely move to a "free market" - then the AA player value rule needs to be stricken - as this contradicts the edict this league has put in place. I also think the point Gabe brings up about roster management is a topic that should be discussed.

you expect me to read all of that?

You, no, the ExCo, probably. That's one thing I hated about being Commish, If someone wrote out a long email or message, I had to read it. Well, i didn't have to, but as Commish, I really should. There were a couple times when i didn't and even said so "I'm not going to read all that because I'm lazy". Well, i'm not going to read all that because I'm not the one arguing with Nate. So there.
And now, back to my regularly scheduled program.

And what in da hell is that logo supposed to be?

haha.. actually that was my bad.. I had a misstep while composing the original post.. had copied some of the original text earlier in my composition.. started composing a 2nd reply since I fucked up the first.. pasted what I had copied.. continued from there.. posted before I had to run an errand without proper review..

hence the length & redundency... sorry!

chalk up another tally under the "stoner mistake" column..

oh & the logo in the signature area of my post is a play on the MLB logo.. its a DJ wearin headphones and spinnin on the wheels o' steele! the logo is originally used by the ESDJ Co. or "extra srength DJ" company.

Nate, I read it, digested it, I just disagree (at least on the point of trading picks). As for other topics in this thread (roster limits, AA rule) I'm on board for changing those.

I do find it slightly hypocritical that on one hand you're telling me we should be forcing GMs to draft and on the other you're saying there's no reason we should force them to have drafted players. I realize that's not a major part of your argument, but still contradictory.

Frankly, I do think the only argument which might be able to sway me (and I really don't think it would) would be if you argued that because we had no idea which Japanese guys are going to come over, trading top picks for what is going to be perceived as a prospect but could instead turn into a major leaguer is foolish. With better player news than ever, I find this argument lacking.

If a GM is going to go out and trade their pick without any idea of the value of it then they're stupid, plain and simple. I really don't see the problem in giving GMs more leeway, we've included a clause that requires new to the draft GMs to be watched more carefully in trading their picks and most of the league are veterans of the rookie draft by now. To hold back 20 GMs because 10 might not know the value of their pick seems rather foolish to me. Also, since we've restricted trading to after the season, GMs will know exactly what pick they have, so there's no guess work there, if we had done in season I could see complaining on the basis of no idea exactly what pick they end up with.

Additionally, no one is going to have to keep track of the draft picks, everything (as long as I have some free time between now and December) is going to be completely automated through OOPSS. You'll have picks on your roster as if they were players, you can trade them and you'll draft through an automated web page which will replace the pick with a player, there basically won't be anyone keeping track besides OOPSS.

What's more valuable, having a championship in 2007 or having one in 2009?

Forcing teams to carry draft picks and draft slots on their roster is saying that 2009 is more important.

I understand that a team with little future is less attractive to other potential GM's when that team needs to be filled, but in the age of mini-drafts..what difference does that make anyway.


I think it was Nate who said that a "good SIM GM" will find a way to win regardless of the situation. I'm from that same school of thought.

I think people are missing the intent of the extra 10 rule. You have a 40 man roster like the MLB teams, trying to be realistic. The extra 10 draft slots are there to force people to pay attention to prospects, because when you have GMs who are that committed to them it means you have to pay attention to them to compete over the long haul, and that even the strongest teams cannot sustain themselves without them (see Erickson, Nils). The AA rule is there for the benefit of those same GMs who don't like prospects, it forces the market to acknowledge the dubious value of prospects and prevents the rich getting richer by making it impossible for an established team to trade a flavor of the month prospect for a top-tier proven MLB type. I oppose strongly changing either rule.

Speaking as a first time drafting owner, I think the new GM's might appreciate the value of a pick more if we each got a couple sandwich picks between the first and second round.

Athletics wrote: The AA rule is there for the benefit of those same GMs who don't like prospects, it forces the market to acknowledge the dubious value of prospects and prevents the rich getting richer by making it impossible for an established team to trade a flavor of the month prospect for a top-tier proven MLB type. I oppose strongly changing either rule.

My problem with the so-called "AA" rule is that its application, as presently constituted, presumes that the 1st player selected in the draft has the same value as the the 150th, 350th or 750th player selected. They clearly are not of equal value ...

How much value have guys like Jeff Allison ended up having? To reach AA a guy has to sustain success, which generates a track record against steadily improving competition, especially important since it's not like any of us are traveling around the Appalachian League watching games so its not like we can get our own scouting on. Problems happen when a GM decides he wants to go prospect heavy and rebuild, so he trades Dan Haren to a top team for the equivalents of Jeff Allison, Roy Branch (props to anyone who remembers that guy), and Chris Nelson. Now the top team hasn't given up anything, and they get a top tier starter for gambles which don't pan out and the other team is much worse off than before.

I like prospects as much as the rest, but forcing a team to have 10 will just cause a team to go sign 10 random spects. If you're going to enforce, might as well make sure that team has spects worth a damn, or it defeats the purpose.

Also, I don't remember guys like Nick Adenhart or Ryan Braun making it above AA last year, under the current blanket rule, they would have less value?
It just seems more complicated than it needs to be. I think there should be a max of 10 uncarded spects, and no minimum...if that holds true, and 29 teams have their max...any new GM could find good prospects outside of the 290 already taken to create and sign.

And what do Nils and Gabe care about continued success...last I checked, their name was on the penant, and to some, that's what it's all about...They could have fielded teams with 10 top ten prospects, and finished .500 instead of taking home the brass.

Athletics wrote:I think people are missing the intent of the extra 10 rule. You have a 40 man roster like the MLB teams, trying to be realistic. The extra 10 draft slots are there to force people to pay attention to prospects, because when you have GMs who are that committed to them it means you have to pay attention to them to compete over the long haul, and that even the strongest teams cannot sustain themselves without them (see Erickson, Nils). The AA rule is there for the benefit of those same GMs who don't like prospects, it forces the market to acknowledge the dubious value of prospects and prevents the rich getting richer by making it impossible for an established team to trade a flavor of the month prospect for a top-tier proven MLB type. I oppose strongly changing either rule.

Rockies wrote:I like prospects as much as the rest, but forcing a team to have 10 will just cause a team to go sign 10 random spects. If you're going to enforce, might as well make sure that team has spects worth a damn, or it defeats the purpose.

Also, I don't remember guys like Nick Adenhart or Ryan Braun making it above AA last year, under the current blanket rule, they would have less value?
It just seems more complicated than it needs to be. I think there should be a max of 10 uncarded spects, and no minimum...if that holds true, and 29 teams have their max...any new GM could find good prospects outside of the 290 already taken to create and sign.

And what do Nils and Gabe care about continued success...last I checked, their name was on the penant, and to some, that's what it's all about...They could have fielded teams with 10 top ten prospects, and finished .500 instead of taking home the brass.

Athletics wrote:I think people are missing the intent of the extra 10 rule. You have a 40 man roster like the MLB teams, trying to be realistic. The extra 10 draft slots are there to force people to pay attention to prospects, because when you have GMs who are that committed to them it means you have to pay attention to them to compete over the long haul, and that even the strongest teams cannot sustain themselves without them (see Erickson, Nils). The AA rule is there for the benefit of those same GMs who don't like prospects, it forces the market to acknowledge the dubious value of prospects and prevents the rich getting richer by making it impossible for an established team to trade a flavor of the month prospect for a top-tier proven MLB type. I oppose strongly changing either rule.

imo, they won in spite of that not because of that. I doubt their 39th best sim player or 43rd best sim player had anything to do with their success.

Just to be clear, I am not necessarily in favor of changing the extra 10 man spot, but I certainly think it could use a thread(as there is already one going.. meh) - I can see both sides of the coin, and certainly remember how/what/when/where/why this rule was implemented. It was originally to mirror the minor league system, and since they were "extra" to the 40 man, to account for the last 2 years of a draft.

25 man active
15 man "minor" - anyone you want on this spot.. vets or draftees
10 man draftee spot..

but i could certainly see lifting the o5 or o6 limitation to include international signees as well who are not in the database..