2008 Draft Date

Rangers · Post by **Rangers** » Mon Dec 01, 2008 2:16 pm

It's been a long time since this has happened, hasn't it? You guys weren't exactly turning over every stone back then either. And Pat signed Saito, so that wasn't a draft issue.

Nationals · Post by **Nationals** » Mon Dec 01, 2008 2:26 pm

Z, I agree that we should minimize the "dumb luck" factor to the best of our abilities as a league. However, the hours before the draft begins are not the time to implement such a rule. We should look at this as a league after the draft ends and try to implement it before the next draft.

Yankees · Post by **Yankees** » Mon Dec 01, 2008 2:29 pm

It's certainly not a huge deal - but it could be. This just gets out ahead of anything wild ever happening. People would be pissed if someone surprisingly declared right in front of JB to allow him to sign - this just takes the luck out of it. We're not playing the lottery here - we have the ability to put some rigor around something that could potentially be an issue.

And I'm not using Saito as a specific example, I'm using him as a random that's a better argumentative fit than Tazawa. International players signed are not eligible until the next draft - this is putting the same fair parameters around players that sign during the actual draft. It's not a dumb luck free-for-all during the season, it shouldn't be a dumb luck free-for-all during the draft.

Reds · Post by **Reds** » Mon Dec 01, 2008 2:35 pm

Why not just let any of the foriegn players be drafted and if they don't sign by date X (some date prior to next season) then you lose them. This allows anyone who wishes to risk the pick a fair shot yet does not give them rights forever if they don't sign.

Rangers · Post by **Rangers** » Mon Dec 01, 2008 2:45 pm

Nationals wrote:Why not just let any of the foriegn players be drafted and if they don't sign by date X (some date prior to next season) then you lose them. This allows anyone who wishes to risk the pick a fair shot yet does not give them rights forever if they don't sign.

Yes, this makes the most sense, and is what we do now anyway. The suggested change assumes that important guys come from out of nowhere to be signed, and that just hasn't been happening. A case like Iguchi wouldn't be a problem under our current rules, assuming guys do their homework, which they do now. If you want to have all information served to you on a silver platter, this sort of league isn't best for you anyway.

Reds · Post by **Reds** » Mon Dec 01, 2008 2:49 pm

So if I wish to draft Tazawa at any point I may but if he doesn't sign I lose the pick. The way it has been presented in a few of the post had me believing he had to be signed. Makes sense though, my risk my reward (or not).

Giants · Post by **Giants** » Mon Dec 01, 2008 2:49 pm

Nationals wrote:Why not just let any of the foriegn players be drafted and if they don't sign by date X (some date prior to next season) then you lose them. This allows anyone who wishes to risk the pick a fair shot yet does not give them rights forever if they don't sign.

It makes so much sense that IT'S ALREADY THE RULE!!!!!

2. A player will be returned to the draft pool for the next season under the following conditions. If the player was drafted by an MLB team and does not sign a new contract before the next MLB draft (the 2007 MLB draft in the example above). If the player is a Cuban defector or is from another professional league such as Japan, Korea or Mexico and does not sign a contract with an MLB team by opening day (Opening Day of the 2007 season in the example above). If the does not fall under one of these two categories, he must have signed a contract with an MLB team prior to January first of that year (prior to January 1st of 2007 in the example above).

For those keeping score at home this is the second time I've posted this exact section of the rules in this thread. Unsigned Japanese/Cuban players can be drafted at any time, and if they don't sign a contract by Opening Day you lose their rights (January 1 for Dominican teens like the mysterious Edward Salcedo).

Reds · Post by **Reds** » Mon Dec 01, 2008 2:51 pm

see above ^^^^^^^

Giants · Post by **Giants** » Mon Dec 01, 2008 2:51 pm

Nationals wrote:So if I wish to draft Tazawa at any point I may but if he doesn't sign I lose the pick. The way it has been presented in a few of the post had me believing he had to be signed. Makes sense though, my risk my reward (or not).

If you draft Tazawa he's yours until Opening Day if he doesn't sign. Once he signs he's yours for good. John "lost" his Harvey pick last year because Harvey didn't sign and was going to college, so there was no way he'd sign by Opening Day. Had Matt Harvey found some kind of Landon Powell like exception to the rules and signed by Opening Day then John would have kept him.

Reds · Post by **Reds** » Mon Dec 01, 2008 2:53 pm

got it! It just wasn't sounding that way in the posts.

Giants · Post by **Giants** » Mon Dec 01, 2008 2:57 pm

The problem with good solutions is that you can't bitch about them on a message board, it's usually more effective to distort what's going on to confuse the issue, make's the board more interesting

Yankees · Post by **Yankees** » Mon Dec 01, 2008 2:58 pm

I'm resigned to having this not occur this year - but I do think this should be examined for 2009. A bad team should not be discouraged from taking a very good player if they are unsure of his status.

And I've done very well drafting in my history - but I'm not going to pretend I know the status of everyone in the Japanese professional league and when/if they are going to sign with an MLB club. Whether we know it or not, there is some dumb luck involved - and it will only heighten if more and more players continue to cross over to America - from a variety of countries. Getting ahead of this for next year would be in the best interest of the league.

Giants · Post by **Giants** » Mon Dec 01, 2008 3:09 pm

Any draftable Japanese player (meaning a player likely to get a useful projection in the sim or to have a very high ceiling) will already be well known to any GM who even goes through the trouble of reading mlbtraderumors.com, as well as their prospects for signing a big league deal. At a certain point GM's have to be responsible for doing their due diligence, and if you aren't willing take Tazawa at say pick 18 even though you think he's worth it because he hasn't signed an MLB contract yet then you haven't done enough research on the player to justify drafting him. As to the middle reliever issue, if you're interested in that sort of thing then there's always NPB tracker, which will tell you all you need to know. Honestly, the last thing most last place teams need is a middle reliever, and rarely is a middle reliever the difference between 100 losses and 100 wins. At a certain point it just comes down to due diligence.

Angels · Post by **Angels** » Mon Dec 01, 2008 3:19 pm

Trying not to sound like a little bitch or anything, but when will the draft finally start???

Cardinals · Post by **Cardinals** » Mon Dec 01, 2008 3:20 pm

Indians wrote:Trying not to sound like little bitch or anything, but when will the draft finally start???

Around six tonight, 10 PM est at the very latest.

Giants · Post by **Giants** » Mon Dec 01, 2008 3:21 pm

There are OOPSS technical difficulties. Soon as I get the word and get to a computer we'll get rolling.

Mets · Post by **Mets** » Mon Dec 01, 2008 5:28 pm

1. no rule should be based off of which team has picks where...it should be based off the value of the actual pick, be it a draft pick or a prospect/player dealt for that pick.

2. My reasoning for creating the rule in the other league was precisely for the Saito-type player. It was to address the fact that a guy can come out of nowhere halfway through the draft (I don't care how much research you do, no one really saw that having an impact), and in some instances, still get a useful projection for the upcoming season.

In either event, regardless of who has pick #31, that pick is generally reserved for the team with the greatest need of help in the league, and if they dealt that pick, it's their responsibility to ensure they receive appropriate value for that pick.

I don't care how IBC does it either way...I'm just always thinking about what's best for league parity rather than what's best for the individual GM with no sex life who spends 18 hours a day researching Japanese baseball, and happens to get lucky when Saito signs 2.5 rounds into the draft.

Yankees · Post by **Yankees** » Mon Dec 01, 2008 5:32 pm

I don't care how IBC does it either way...I'm just always thinking about what's best for league parity rather than what's best for the individual GM with no sex life who spends 18 hours a day researching Japanese baseball, and happens to get lucky when Saito signs 2.5 rounds into the draft.

Boom pow surprise, what you gonna do now JP/Brett P/Shawn/Ropers/Jake? You got served!

If if this wasn't meant at them, I'm going to pretend it is...

Rangers · Post by **Rangers** » Mon Dec 01, 2008 5:39 pm

Royals wrote:
I don't care how IBC does it either way...I'm just always thinking about what's best for league parity rather than what's best for the individual GM with no sex life who spends 18 hours a day researching Japanese baseball, and happens to get lucky when Saito signs 2.5 rounds into the draft.
Boom pow surprise, what you gonna do now JP/Brett P/Shawn/Ropers/Jake? You got served!

If if this wasn't meant at them, I'm going to pretend it is...

You remind me of my sister, Z. She's already thinking of how she disagrees with you on your latest comment before you even get it out. We've already addressed this like five times in this thread. BCMBL doesn't allow players to be drafted until they're signed (with an apparent exception for Tazawa today) officially, which requires the addendum that John has suggested. Since we don't, all you have to do is pay attention and not be caught off guard.

With the exponential growth in coverage of potential international signings in the last few years, all you have to do is do your homework to not be caught off guard. If you don't like doing your homework, maybe BCMBL has the better setup.

Yankees · Post by **Yankees** » Mon Dec 01, 2008 5:55 pm

Ummm, I was just talking about you guys having no sex life and spending 18 hours a day researching Japanese baseball...as per my other posts, I've dropped the original crusade for the year...

Just like my mom Brett P, always trying to recreate an argument I had dropped 10 minutes ago when it was clear I had no chance to win...

Giants · Post by **Giants** » Mon Dec 01, 2008 6:36 pm

Considering Saito went undrafted by all GMs and then unsigned until March that is about as lame a serving as one can administer, since any new rule would be totally inapplicable to the situation.

Mets · Post by **Mets** » Mon Dec 01, 2008 7:17 pm

to quote myself:

"precisely for the Saito-type player"

That being said, Saito should not have been eligible to signed, and should have been in the next years draft. But that's a whole different story.

Royals · Post by **Royals** » Mon Dec 01, 2008 8:57 pm

If you change the rule to what the BCMBL has instituted then you're randomly inserting high value picks into late rounds of the draft and there's no certainty at all that those picks will be owned by weaker teams or that if they dealt those picks that they got appropriate value for them. The rule as it is has been debated and discussed for a long time and with the recent changes to the MLB draft, there is far, far less gambling with picks as to whether you'll be able to keep a player. the only times that I can recall a GM losing a player due to him not signing it involved unsigned MLB draftees. i can't think of any japanese or cuban players who have been lost. our way is unquestionably superior to what the BCMBL does, maybe you guys should adjust your draft approach.

Cardinals · Post by **Cardinals** » Mon Dec 01, 2008 8:59 pm

RedSox wrote:If you change the rule to what the BCMBL has instituted then you're randomly inserting high value picks into late rounds of the draft and there's no certainty at all that those picks will be owned by weaker teams or that if they dealt those picks that they got appropriate value for them. The rule as it is has been debated and discussed for a long time and with the recent changes to the MLB draft, there is far, far less gambling with picks as to whether you'll be able to keep a player. the only times that I can recall a GM losing a player due to him not signing it involved unsigned MLB draftees. i can't think of any japanese or cuban players who have been lost. our way is unquestionably superior to what the BCMBL does, maybe you guys should adjust your draft approach.

First Jim agrees with you, now I do, what the fuck? I couldn't really have said it much better.

Reds · Post by **Reds** » Mon Dec 01, 2008 9:06 pm

It's cold in hell today.