Roster Breakdowns/10 Draft Picks

Yankees · Post by **Yankees** » Fri Aug 24, 2007 3:06 pm

I'm so confused - and maybe I haven't read this in detail - but what's the problem with having to have 10 guys just be non-SIM guys?

For me, the vast majority of those would be draft picks anyway. Will you sometimes find a diamond in the rough that you can store there (for me I'm itching to get Soria and Edwar going for next year) - but they are the same as a draft pick for me - useless in the current season.

Next year they will graduate to my 40 man roster, and I'll have to drop two guys in their stead.

My solution would be that you can not store draft picks that are in the SIM on your draft roster. I have Patterson and Nicoll stored in my draft, but they are a part of the SIM. I should have to make a decision whether or not to keep them on my 40-man. Does this limit our ability to judge the caliber of some draft picks? Sure, but if they have already moved up to the level of SIM inclusion after zero or one years then it seems like they are worthy of holding on to.

40 guys in the SIM
10 guys with 0's, 5's, and 6's (next year 0's, 6's, 7's)

Granted I wrote it, but it seems like a fair proposal...

Giants · Post by **Giants** » Fri Aug 24, 2007 3:31 pm

The problem with that is the number of lower level players who are being included. If it was still that players who reached AA making the DB that would make sense, but this year John Mayberry made the SIM after spending the year in Low A. How fair an evaluation is that?

Mets · Post by **Mets** » Fri Aug 24, 2007 3:54 pm

Athletics wrote:The problem with that is the number of lower level players who are being included. If it was still that players who reached AA making the DB that would make sense, but this year John Mayberry made the SIM after spending the year in Low A. How fair an evaluation is that?

That's usually part of the challenge.

I guess my question is...

If the roster was:

40 projectable players
10 non-carded players

how would that be a negative on the league, other than it's a hell of a lot easier for everyone involved to keep track of?

It's not being lazy..it's mostly common sense to me. Yeah, I could take the long way home from work and have a better view, but in the end, I'd rather get home 10 minutes quicker and drive through the ghetto.

Athletics · Post by **Athletics** » Fri Aug 24, 2007 4:19 pm

Rockies wrote:
It's not being lazy..it's mostly common sense to me. Yeah, I could take the long way home from work and have a better view, but in the end, I'd rather get home 10 minutes quicker and drive through the ghetto.

That was fuckin hilarious.

Tigers · Post by **Tigers** » Fri Aug 24, 2007 5:38 pm

Rockies wrote: Yeah, I could take the long way home from work and have a better view, but in the end, I'd rather get home 10 minutes quicker and drive through the ghetto.

Oh, come on. You don't expect us to believe you cut through the ghetto to save ten minutes of commute time. We all know you do it for the $10 ho's. We've all shopped that street corner before.

Giants · Post by **Giants** » Fri Aug 24, 2007 5:41 pm

Rockies wrote:
Athletics wrote:The problem with that is the number of lower level players who are being included. If it was still that players who reached AA making the DB that would make sense, but this year John Mayberry made the SIM after spending the year in Low A. How fair an evaluation is that?
That's usually part of the challenge.

I guess my question is...

If the roster was:

40 projectable players
10 non-carded players

how would that be a negative on the league, other than it's a hell of a lot easier for everyone involved to keep track of?

It's not being lazy..it's mostly common sense to me. Yeah, I could take the long way home from work and have a better view, but in the end, I'd rather get home 10 minutes quicker and drive through the ghetto.

A major problem with that is that it disincentivizes the current year's draft. If a GM already has 10 non-carded players on the roster he likes what does he care about the current draft? Then we have GMs not paying attention which increases the risk of bad draft pick trades because the picks are worthless to them which drives down their value, and more importantly it just makes it less fun because there is less participation in the draft. If a decent bloc of GMs (say anything more than 2 or 3) doesn't want to participate in the draft it would severely drag down the quality of the draft, which is always one of the most fun parts of the season.

Yankees · Post by **Yankees** » Fri Aug 24, 2007 6:52 pm

Then he doesn't draft and other people get the better players from the draft - I'm not sure what's wrong with this. If someone feels they have 10 guys worthy of keeping on the roster that won't be in the SIM, far be it from any of us to tell him otherwise. If it gets me a better player because of it, better for everyone...

Also, if they think this is the case, they can then trade the draft picks to someone who might need to rebuild more for something that helps the original person out that year.

This seems more and more logical the more people argue against it...

Royals · Post by **Royals** » Fri Aug 24, 2007 8:01 pm

So GM's shouldn't have to maintain prospects if the don't want to or participate in the draft?
Q: What kind of MLB GM doesn't participate in the draft and doesn't even try to maintain a decent farm system?
A: A shitty one.

persoally, i'd prefer that we all get a 40 man roster, 5 spots for players in AA or High A, and 5 lower than High A (that would be A, low A, Rookie ball and DSL regardless of draft year) or something similar along those lines. That would be MUCH closer to what MLB does and create a more realistic challenge for running a team.

Mets · Post by **Mets** » Fri Aug 24, 2007 9:22 pm

Good idea in theory, but what happens when players get moved between levels?

Also...even GM's that don't care to develop prospects still need to draft the best ones possible...because they have the best trade value...

ie: I drafted Joba because I knew he'd kick ass, and bring back a return that I would need for the playoff push...

RedSox wrote:So GM's shouldn't have to maintain prospects if the don't want to or participate in the draft?
Q: What kind of MLB GM doesn't participate in the draft and doesn't even try to maintain a decent farm system?
A: A shitty one.

persoally, i'd prefer that we all get a 40 man roster, 5 spots for players in AA or High A, and 5 lower than High A (that would be A, low A, Rookie ball and DSL regardless of draft year) or something similar along those lines. That would be MUCH closer to what MLB does and create a more realistic challenge for running a team.

Astros · Post by **Astros** » Fri Aug 24, 2007 10:03 pm

If you drive through the ghetto daily, then you are a brave, brave man John. And I quit shopping on the corner once Rich's wife retired

Royals · Post by **Royals** » Fri Aug 24, 2007 11:16 pm

We all know she retired because you gave her the herpes Aaron...

DBacks · Post by **DBacks** » Fri Aug 24, 2007 11:29 pm

RedSox wrote: persoally, i'd prefer that we all get a 40 man roster, 5 spots for players in AA or High A, and 5 lower than High A (that would be A, low A, Rookie ball and DSL regardless of draft year) or something similar along those lines. That would be MUCH closer to what MLB does and create a more realistic challenge for running a team.

If you base this upon where a player starts the year, that could very well work. It might mean someone you stashed on your AA roster ends up in the bigs by the end of the year, but so what? His roster designation would change the following season and he would have to be on your 40 man roster or released/traded. As Bren said, that could be much more like the MLB than the system we have now.

Anything is better than this draft year thing. Way too limiting.

Royals · Post by **Royals** » Fri Aug 24, 2007 11:31 pm

John,
well, we either go based on where the player ended last season for the entire season or you just pay attention and deal with promotions as they happen (with some sort of bffer window, i.e. 2 weeks). The only moves that you need to really consider are, in the example above, A to high A or AA to AA/majors.

Dodgers · Post by **Dodgers** » Mon Aug 27, 2007 10:21 am

I'm not totally opposed to Bren's minor league idea, however if we were going to do it I think I would only support it if it was based on the highest level a player reached rookie requirements (50 ab/ip or whatever it is) and we expanded to 45 players with 5 each from AAA/AA/A+R. Regardless, whatever rule ends up winning this argument should be fully enforced 100% of the time, with appropriate penalties for being in violation. That will likely mean that unless we end up on sim/out of sim or current draftee rule I'll need some help enforcing this stuff.

Yankees · Post by **Yankees** » Mon Aug 27, 2007 1:27 pm

We complain when things get too complicated and then we get rid of them - that's how this league has always worked. Why the F are we making this more complicated then it needs to be?

40 guys in the SIM
10 guys not in the SIM

If you want, that 40 guys can include extra non-SIM players, but it won't work the other way (having over 40 SIM players).

It's easy. It's clean. Can someone please construct an argument AGAINST it?

Yankees · Post by **Yankees** » Mon Aug 27, 2007 1:29 pm

In response to a "Mayberry" type - it becomes your choice...40 guys is a lot of SIM guys to have. If you don't think he's worthy of being on your 40-man, then you drop him - big leagues have to make tough decisions all the time, I don't see why we can't make a couple.

Nationals · Post by **Nationals** » Mon Aug 27, 2007 2:27 pm

Z--I've been for this plan for a while!

Giants · Post by **Giants** » Mon Aug 27, 2007 4:14 pm

My concern isn't Mayberry types, it's the draft. And can someone explain to me how 10 spots for players from the last 2 drafts is complicated?

Yankees · Post by **Yankees** » Mon Aug 27, 2007 4:51 pm

I'm not arguing how complicated the draft thing is - it's not complicated at all, that's why we still have it. The league seems to be moving against it, so I was offering a solution to that particular challenge. I would be more then fine keeping things status quo.

As many can attest, I have had a great track record of drafting guys and then trading them to make my team better - many of those guys have been in the 3rd round or later. I would be ecstatic if some teams paid less attention to the draft - better players for me.

Royals · Post by **Royals** » Mon Aug 27, 2007 7:35 pm

Athletics wrote:And can someone explain to me how 10 spots for players from the last 2 drafts is complicated?

I'd love to hear the same thing. If that kind of thing is too complicated for you, then I can't imagine how you manage to even log onto the internet.

DBacks · Post by **DBacks** » Mon Aug 27, 2007 9:36 pm

No one thinks its complicated.

Everyone thinks its stupid.

Royals · Post by **Royals** » Mon Aug 27, 2007 10:09 pm

You think it's stupid because you don't want to bother with developing a farm system.

If everyone thought it was stupid then the ExCo wouldn't have voted to keep the system as it is.

Mets · Post by **Mets** » Mon Aug 27, 2007 10:34 pm

I still fail to see the advantage to having 5 guys from one draft and 5 guys from another over just having 10 "draft" guys from any draft, not in the SIM.

What if I like the 2005 class a hell of a lot more than the 2006 class..why should I be penalized for that....?

DBacks · Post by **DBacks** » Mon Aug 27, 2007 11:40 pm

Rockies wrote:I still fail to see the advantage to having 5 guys from one draft and 5 guys from another over just having 10 "draft" guys from any draft, not in the SIM.

What if I like the 2005 class a hell of a lot more than the 2006 class..why should I be penalized for that....?

No one will tell you the advantage, because there isn't one. You shouldn't be penalized, but you will be, because that's the way we do things around here.

Giants · Post by **Giants** » Mon Aug 27, 2007 11:42 pm

First of all, it's not 5 guys from each draft, it's 10 guys from the last two draft classes. We made that change last year. If you like the 2006 class better than the 2007 class you can have 8 2006 guys and only draft 2 2007 guys while trading your other 3 picks (before the draft but after the season). Nothing wrong with that. As far as the 2005 players go, well you've now had 2 years to evaluate them and whether or not they are worth holding on to. If you want to protect them you put them on your 40-man. What exactly is the great advantage of changing the system? What's the big disadvantage with having it the way it is? Big rule changes (and I'd argue that this is a pretty big one) should only be made if there is a strong reason to make them, and no one has presented a compelling reason why this change NEEDS to be made.