Rule V Draft?

Rockies · Post by **Rockies** » Mon Sep 10, 2007 2:30 pm

I'm opposed to the idea of a rule v as well. As its been mentioned above, this draft would in no way be a true rule 5 draft, but also I dont see how this would effect the issue which started this debate, addressing competitive balance. Maybe it would re-locate some bottom of the lineup guys who in the long run may make a difference, but I think our free agency takes care of that. Bottom of the roster player rotation is the only thing this addresses, and thats not an issue that I think we're having. A true rule 5 would force you to keep your picks on your 25 man roster and effectively play those guys. I understand why it wouldnt make sense to enforce that, but without that minor detail it negates the effects of the draft.

BlueJays · Post by **BlueJays** » Mon Sep 10, 2007 10:52 pm

Didn't this thread have more posts? WTF? Maybe I'm just z00ted again..

In any case.. fellas..

I have recently been let go from my job, because I called in to take a day off after my wife passed out, hit her head, and started having seizures the night before.

I know its not a true Rule V.. call it a hybrid.

But since I should have a whole lot more time on my hands now, and since the signing date for first year draftees has come and gone and we know who is elgible and who isn't(excluding international signees..), I would like to go ahead and, if everyone's interested and/or willing, organize and run a mock draft. Perhaps more than 1, using different parameters.

I defenitely want to try a version where first year and "rule V" players go into the same overall pool to be drafted from. Tinker with the number of guys protected here and there, to see if more/less adds any additional benefit... but I can't do the Mock without help from everyone or most everyone...

In any case, I got free time now.. perhaps why I've rambled on so much in my posts tonight.. but I want to get this started when the season's done. Give us something to do during the offseason as well.

Royals · Post by **Royals** » Tue Sep 11, 2007 1:31 pm

Reds wrote:Didn't this thread have more posts? WTF? Maybe I'm just z00ted again..

In any case.. fellas..

I have recently been let go from my job, because I called in to take a day off after my wife passed out, hit her head, and started having seizures the night before.

I know its not a true Rule V.. call it a hybrid.

But since I should have a whole lot more time on my hands now, and since the signing date for first year draftees has come and gone and we know who is elgible and who isn't(excluding international signees..), I would like to go ahead and, if everyone's interested and/or willing, organize and run a mock draft. Perhaps more than 1, using different parameters.

I defenitely want to try a version where first year and "rule V" players go into the same overall pool to be drafted from. Tinker with the number of guys protected here and there, to see if more/less adds any additional benefit... but I can't do the Mock without help from everyone or most everyone...

In any case, I got free time now.. perhaps why I've rambled on so much in my posts tonight.. but I want to get this started when the season's done. Give us something to do during the offseason as well.

The ExCo has pretty much killed the idea, but I personally would love to see a mock draft on this. Go for it.
Sorry about your job btw. Hope your wide is ok.

Yankees · Post by **Yankees** » Tue Sep 11, 2007 1:36 pm

Same from me man - sorry to hear about the above...

BlueJays · Post by **BlueJays** » Tue Sep 11, 2007 3:04 pm

Eh, shit happens.. she's fine.. blood sugar just got low, she was a bit dehydrated.. and wham..

She's been known to pass out before.. a few years back we were up in Ft. Collins at a club going to see D:Fuse on Halloween... We're drinkin pretty heavily, she puts down a handful of jello shots on top of the brews we'd been dousing.. She goes to the bathroom, and next thing you know I have some crazy bitch tuggin on my sleeve and asking me if I know some guy named "Nate" in a panic. She apparently passed out in the bathroom while waitin for a stall, smacked her head on the floor, split her lip... spent the night at the hospital, didn't get to see D:Fuse...

Go to see DJ Q-Bert, she steps on a fucking nail - tetanis.

Hits her head, I lose my job.. heh. I swear we're cursed.

As for losing my job, yeah it sucks.. but I have my priorities. And a small business has theirs. I worked a helluva lot of hours, and it was affecting quite a few things - including my participation this year in the IBC.. so I'm trying to find the silver lining in it all and I'm just glad I can get back to baseball, shaping my roster, and spinning records - which I haven't done in ages.. I dont know what I'm going to do exactly, but it will work itself out.

Got a lead on a city job... might focus my efforts on finally making a good strong push to get a paying fucking gig playin clubs around here... Got to dedicate myself tho.

Even if the ruleV thing doesn't get put in place, whatever.. I'd still like to do a mock.. I think it'd be fun nonetheless. And it certainly can't hurt anything.

Nationals · Post by **Nationals** » Tue Sep 11, 2007 10:32 pm

I should probably add my input on this--I've been a bit wrapped up with grad school to get a cogent thought process out. Basically out of all the schemes to bring about "competitive balance"--which is an artificial creation that I scoff at...a league should not go out and gift teams with means to improve themselves...a team must take the knocks from better squads if it wants to improve; there's no other way to do so. Yes I might be prejudiced as a novus homo who started off as a 45-win squad and only through the dint of my own hard work have I achieved what I have, but I sure as hell didn't ask for a helping hand. End of digression--this is the one that is most kosher to me. You can't play everyone and if your spare parts are seen as valuable to another squad, then why not give that team a chance to raid the coffers of the rich? I personally am a fan of the idea proposed by a member somewhere above that only those players who receive projections beyond, say, the 35th position on a team would be eligible for this "Rule V" draft. I see this as having a second advantage in that it helps push us GMs to maintain full draft rosters and provides a carrot for following that rule about having 5 players from each of the last two drafts on the team (which, if you were to ask me, you'd hear a reply that it's a pretty damned asinine rule in the first place).

This is far more agreeable than moving teams around (god knows we've had too much of that in the existence of the league).

Rangers · Post by **Rangers** » Tue Sep 11, 2007 11:48 pm

I'm sorry, but this league is not too hard that someone who tries can't build a roster. Lots of us have done it or are doing it, post this supposed JB or in Bren's mind JB and Bren dynasty (sorry, couldn't resist) - or whatever you guys who have fallen behind in your roster development or feel like others might be discouraged are seeing. The whole joy of this is scaling that mountain.

To me, the robin hood approach is a way of rewarding the lazy and uninformed and robbing those who try hard. Just a horrible idea.

Royals · Post by **Royals** » Wed Sep 12, 2007 12:20 am

No, it's a JB dynasty. I had one, then took it apart and built a new one.

Royals · Post by **Royals** » Wed Sep 12, 2007 1:37 pm

Just a little FYI. 14 GM's have more than 35 sim eligible players on their rosters, which is quite a lot more than I thought there would be.

Astros · Post by **Astros** » Wed Sep 12, 2007 5:05 pm

Okay, this is the IBC, not the welfare line. Dan, I know you're trying to be Huey Long here and I'm anxiously awaiting your "Every man a king, no man wears a crown" speech but why are we even fooling with this. Everyone here works hard on their rosters for the most part. Nobody has people taking up roster spots that don't serve some purpose. If you want a guy, sign him. If you got beat to him, then make a trade

Orioles · Post by **Orioles** » Wed Sep 12, 2007 5:18 pm

Cardinals wrote:Okay, this is the IBC, not the welfare line. Dan, I know you're trying to be Huey Long here and I'm anxiously awaiting your "Every man a king, no man wears a crown" speech but why are we even fooling with this. Everyone here works hard on their rosters for the most part. Nobody has people taking up roster spots that don't serve some purpose. If you want a guy, sign him. If you got beat to him, then make a trade

I haven't really been stumping for a Rule V draft. I thought some of the ideas were interesting, but moving a couple of teams around would be a simpler answer than all this. After the responses to my salary system post, that's obviously not a very realistic possibility.

BlueJays · Post by **BlueJays** » Wed Sep 12, 2007 10:04 pm

All I ask is a quick trial run.. even if nothing ever gets put into action.

I just think it'd be fun to have a draft. Part of the fun in building a team, for me anyway - and aside from 5 rounds here or there a year, I haven't had one in a long time. It will give us something to do in the offseason, and who knows - the results may surprise everyone and could turn into something thats an attractive element to the league.

Tigers · Post by **Tigers** » Wed Sep 12, 2007 10:41 pm

Reds wrote:All I ask is a quick trial run.. even if nothing ever gets put into action.

I just think it'd be fun to have a draft. Part of the fun in building a team, for me anyway - and aside from 5 rounds here or there a year, I haven't had one in a long time. It will give us something to do in the offseason, and who knows - the results may surprise everyone and could turn into something thats an attractive element to the league.

Since our version of the Rule 5 draft is suppose to be to improve comeptitive balance will only the bottom 15 teams in the league be making selections? While the draft may be fun for everyone to participate in, it doesn't really make sense to have the top 15 teams taking players from the bottom 15 teams rosters if the point is to improve competitive balance.

How many rounds is it suppose to go? Just one?

Would there be a limit to how many players each team could lose off of its roster?

Would GM's be able to select players from only the top 15 teams rosters or could the bottom 15 GM's select players from other bottom 15 team rosters?

Just some things to consider before diving into this thing.

BlueJays · Post by **BlueJays** » Thu Sep 13, 2007 1:52 am

I know this is lengthy, but please read:

The way I view this is not as a true Rule V draft, more of a hybrid "dispersal" draft combined with first year player draft of '07 draftee's(as defined by current league charter.. all '07's who signed, and international guys..)

I would like to make this around 15 - 18 rounds - although that can be adjusted.
I would like to have everyone "protect" 30 players from their 40 man roster. The 10 unprotected go into the draft.
In addition, if we only do 15 rounds - 5 of the 10 man "draft" roster is protected. The remaining 5 unprotected go into the draft.

Every team puts in 15 players that are "unprotected" into the draft pool. These players are elgible to be drafted by any team when their pick comes up, including the pool of first year '07 players. Every team must fill out their roster, which should be 15 slots, selecting from the unprotected players that teams "lost their rights" to, and the first year draftees. You can choose anyone who is elgible to be drafted to fill out the remainder of your roster, as long as its within the "guidelines" of the IBC Roster structure(i.e. 5 "draft" slots, and 10 slots for the 40 man). Conceivably, you could draft 15 '07 draft picks, if you wanted, as long as 10 were inactive.

I'm not sure how this will play out, but I'd like to see the results. the way this thing plays out will certainly be interesting.

Take my roster for example. Here is who I would leave unprotected, elgible to be drafted by every GM in this league. I, of course, if presented with the opportunity, could draft my own player again.

10 guys from 40 man left unprotected:

1. Sanabia, Alejandro - 06 - SP
2. Valentin, Jose - MI
3. Thatcher, Joe - 0 - MR
4. Halman, Gregory - 0 - OF
5. Barratt, Jonathan - SP, LHP
6. Ausmus, Brad - C
7. Nowak, Chris - 1B
8. Stults, Eric - SP,MR
9. Estrada, Paul - MR
10. Chulk, Vinnie - MR

This was not as easy as I thought it would be for me... I wonder what everyone else's list would look like?

Here is my 5 men from the draft slots unprotected:

1. Thomas Cowley - 05 - LHP
2. Reid Engel - 05 - OF
3. Stephen Garrison - 05 - LHP
4. Sean Watson - 06 - RHP
5. Zach Britton - 06 - LHP

This wasn't given a whole lot of thought, since its just an example.. but thats perhaps an interesting mix of talent going into a pool to be selected from. Some probably wouldn't be picked, and would end up as FA's after the draft were over.

Perhaps most GM's would still focus on the '07/international players with the first few rounds... But there's a chance that if that happens, I could fill out the 40 man with some solid players closer to ML Ready. It really depends on the state of the franchise.

Perhaps other GM's would post a quick 10/5 list of who they would leave "unprotected" and we could get a better gauge on the kind of talent that would be going into this thing. I'd be particularly interested in some of the "top" contenders, as well as some of the teams in "rebuilding" mode - like Jagger, Perryman, Jim, JP etc - see what kind of talent they'd be leaving exposed.

Yankees · Post by **Yankees** » Thu Sep 13, 2007 8:32 am

My Unprotected List:
Bayliss Jonah MR 8/13/1980
Brazell Craig 1B 5/10/1980
Carp Mike 1B 6/30/1986
Casey Sean 1B 7/2/1974
Costa Shane RF 12/12/1981
Dellucci David LF 10/31/1973
Guzman Javier SS 5/4/1984
Henn Sean MR 4/23/1981
Phillips Andy 3B 4/6/1977
Treanor Matt C 3/3/1976

My Unprotected Draft:
5-Fisher Brent p 8/6/1987
6-Curtis Colin OF 2/1/1985
6-Mckenry Michael C 3/4/1985
Nicoll Christopher SP 10/30/1983
Patterson Ryan LF 5/2/1983

Royals · Post by **Royals** » Thu Sep 13, 2007 11:58 am

nate, I don't think incorporating this with the first year player draft is a good idea, especially in a mock trial.
1. It will take too long
2. Any kind of accurate trial run would cause GM's to give away who they want with their picks.

Mets · Post by **Mets** » Thu Sep 13, 2007 12:23 pm

Guys I'd expose are guys I'll probably waiver after the year anyway:

Craig Counsell
Eddie Mujica
Brandon Medders
Darin Erstad
Clint Barmes
Cliff Floyd
Bobby Kielty
Carmen Pignatiello
Gregor Blanco
Miguel Batista?

Mariners · Post by **Mariners** » Thu Sep 13, 2007 12:27 pm

Just an FYI, I know I should not worry about anything being adopted here, but here's a heads up anyway.

When thinking about rules, you should always think how they can be 'played' by all.

Personally speaking, if anything in this realm was adopted, I would simply make sure that in future years, I would adjust my roster 'top heavy', and make sure come "mini-draft or Rule 69", or whatever time, that I would only be exposing absolute crap players.

Then, when it's over, simply go sign the same free agents that are NOW available, which to me, are better bets than most everyone's "exposed players"!

So, if we are only "talking" about this type of thing after '08, be rest assured that I will have NOTHING exciting for you to grab from my team!

Rangers · Post by **Rangers** » Fri Sep 14, 2007 10:38 pm

What cracks me up about this whole redistribution idea is that none of the "bad" teams are asking for it. If you're so concerned about us, why don't you just have the bottom ten teams in the standings decide if we need any help (and it's pretty clear that we'd say no) and then leave us freaking alone. The other irony to this whole thing is that several of us who are supposed to be helped take better care of the back sides of our rosters than the teams with good records. JB? No. But there is no way in hell that Jagger or I would trade our last ten for any one of the other best team's back ten.

Cardinals · Post by **Cardinals** » Fri Sep 14, 2007 10:55 pm

I love my back 10 too.