1st Round Draft Picks

Cardinals · Post by **Cardinals** » Mon Dec 24, 2007 5:42 am

RedSox wrote:What do you want to do? Ultimately I can only guess, but I can tell from your own words that you want to deal for a first rounder.

Make sure you don't dick everybody in the draft in the latter part of the first round is what I want to do and as Jim alluded to, make all first rounders treated fairly and not just those who sit on their pick for shits and giggles.

Royals · Post by **Royals** » Mon Dec 24, 2007 10:29 am

When I've decided who to take, I'll make my pick, and not a moment beforehand. I don't have unlimited free time (unlike you) and I'm not going to interrupt my holiday to spend time looking up additional stats, scouting reports and making evaluations on who to pick on top of rejecting ridiculous trade offers (like the 28 and 109 for the 18 ).

Jim,
1. whatever number of votes you can or can't get now, changing the rules in the middle of the process absolutely should not be done unless it's a very pressing issue. If it IS such a pressing issue, it should be 5 of 6. A vote of 4 of 6 on a pressing/important issue is not a precedent we should be setting.
2. What you're suggesting IS a change of the rules. The rule is that the timed draft starts january 4th, period. That's how it has been understood. This isn't a procedural change, it's a rule change.

Dodgers · Post by **Dodgers** » Mon Dec 24, 2007 10:47 am

Well I'd say it's definitely a pressing issue once the league has publicly expressed concern over it. Regardless, I don't think 5 votes here will be that hard.

Padres · Post by **Padres** » Mon Dec 24, 2007 10:48 am

RedSox wrote:When I've decided who to take, I'll make my pick, and not a moment beforehand. I don't have unlimited free time (unlike you) and I'm not going to interrupt my holiday to spend time looking up additional stats, scouting reports and making evaluations on who to pick on top of rejecting ridiculous trade offers (like the 28 and 109 for the 18).

Jim,
1. whatever number of votes you can or can't get now, changing the rules in the middle of the process absolutely should not be done unless it's a very pressing issue. If it IS such a pressing issue, it should be 5 of 6. A vote of 4 of 6 on a pressing/important issue is not a precedent we should be setting.
2. What you're suggesting IS a change of the rules. The rule is that the timed draft starts january 4th, period. That's how it has been understood. This isn't a procedural change, it's a rule change.

Bren -

I don't care how long you take as that is certainly within your purview. I am surprised by how long you are taking as you indicated you spent some time earlier doing appropriate draft-related research (I am not going to bother looking up that old thread); but I do agree with you that you can take as long as you want with your pick.

My point is simply that any other GM should have the same rights with his 1st round pick as you do. To do otherwise is a complete and utter travesty. As you yourself recently wrote, "barring some kind of travesty or obscene matter of fairness, we should not be changing the rule in the middle of the process". Even you would have to admit that it it an 'obscene matter of fairness' to allow one set of rules for Bren [and other GMs lucky enough to make their 1st round pick prior to January 4] and another set of rules for those GMs not as lucky through no fault of their own!

Finally, the change of date is simply a change in a procedural matter -- January 4th is a traditional date. I am proposing extending the untimed portion of the draft beyond the traditional date to ensure that all GMs are treated PROCEDURALLY EQUAL. That is the rule that I do not want to change: THE RULE OF FAIRNESS. To do so would be the worst travesty I have seen in this league - bar none!

Would someone that knows what they are doing please post an ExCo poll for this so we can vote and get this issue of basic fairness resolved. Thank you

Cardinals · Post by **Cardinals** » Mon Dec 24, 2007 4:36 pm

Bren, you are an asshole. I am not one (unlike you) and I will not go out of my way to make the same point over and over again (unlike you) and I hope next October I get my draft scouting going as you said to in the interim of no trading and get your scouting done then (Unlike you).

Royals · Post by **Royals** » Wed Dec 26, 2007 11:31 pm

yeah, i was a little busy with this thing called 'college', or 'grad school' working on this obscure thing called a 'thesis'.

Cardinals · Post by **Cardinals** » Wed Dec 26, 2007 11:54 pm

good one Bren. Let me know when your thesis is complete so I can swiftly kick you in the ovaries.

Giants · Post by **Giants** » Thu Dec 27, 2007 4:56 pm

That line would work if this was round 5 and there were all these obscure players lining up, but come on we're talking about a pick in the top 20. I think that any GM who pays enough attention to baseball to successfully participate in this league should be good to go for the first round simply by osmosis.

Royals · Post by **Royals** » Thu Dec 27, 2007 5:33 pm

No offense to Gabe, but I think he'd disagree. I take the draft seriously and have certain groups of data I like t make sure I have compiled before I make my picks. I'll be done shortly. We'll see when I pick.