IBC

Let's see if we can keep this thread out of the dumpster. Times are changing, in years past Ha would have been #1 or #2. Too bad the GMs are getting better.

Ok, I'll bite. Why so many weird, small 3rd/4th round swaps this year?

Tigers wrote: ↑Mon Mar 01, 2021 5:56 pm Ok, I'll bite. Why so many weird, small 3rd/4th round swaps this year?

It's probably exactly what Aaron said in the other thread: lack of excitement given circumstances. More people condensing picks so they don't have to make as many. I, on the other hand, need to fill out my draft roster (if that's still how the rules work lol) so I traded higher picks for quantity. That said, I haven't done any research yet either. I'll take a couple hours sometime this week to research, but it just kinda sucks this year. Fuck you Covid.

Phillies wrote: ↑Tue Mar 02, 2021 8:46 am

It's probably exactly what Aaron said in the other thread: lack of excitement given circumstances. More people condensing picks so they don't have to make as many. I, on the other hand, need to fill out my draft roster (if that's still how the rules work lol) so I traded higher picks for quantity. That said, I haven't done any research yet either. I'll take a couple hours sometime this week to research, but it just kinda sucks this year. Fuck you Covid.

I wouldn't mind having a discussion of that rule (or at least understand why) to have at least 10 guys from the previous two drafts. Is this some modified approximation of the Rule 5 Draft or something?

DBacks wrote: ↑Tue Mar 02, 2021 9:29 am

Phillies wrote: ↑Tue Mar 02, 2021 8:46 am

It's probably exactly what Aaron said in the other thread: lack of excitement given circumstances. More people condensing picks so they don't have to make as many. I, on the other hand, need to fill out my draft roster (if that's still how the rules work lol) so I traded higher picks for quantity. That said, I haven't done any research yet either. I'll take a couple hours sometime this week to research, but it just kinda sucks this year. Fuck you Covid.

I wouldn't mind having a discussion of that rule (or at least understand why) to have at least 10 guys from the previous two drafts. Is this some modified approximation of the Rule 5 Draft or something?

I would second that discussion. It was always just a thing I dealt with since I joined, but I've had to ditch younger guys (international guys) faster than I want just to stay "legal". It makes it really difficult to play in the international space knowing they aren't going to count toward that draft roster before they even get out of rookie ball.

I assume there is good intent behind the rule, but there might be an opportunity to tweak it to be more accommodating while maintaining the intent.

[Moved from draft thread ...]

Cardinals wrote: ↑Tue Mar 02, 2021 7:07 am Anyone else having trouble getting excited/prepared for this draft? There's zero data to go off of. I've never picked this high, generally I start scouting around Thanksgiving. I did my first research after I was on the clock yesterday.

Royals wrote: ↑Tue Mar 02, 2021 9:51 am

DBacks wrote: ↑Tue Mar 02, 2021 9:29 am

Phillies wrote: ↑Tue Mar 02, 2021 8:46 am

It's probably exactly what Aaron said in the other thread: lack of excitement given circumstances. More people condensing picks so they don't have to make as many. I, on the other hand, need to fill out my draft roster (if that's still how the rules work lol) so I traded higher picks for quantity. That said, I haven't done any research yet either. I'll take a couple hours sometime this week to research, but it just kinda sucks this year. Fuck you Covid.

I wouldn't mind having a discussion of that rule (or at least understand why) to have at least 10 guys from the previous two drafts. Is this some modified approximation of the Rule 5 Draft or something?

I would second that discussion. It was always just a thing I dealt with since I joined, but I've had to ditch younger guys (international guys) faster than I want just to stay "legal". It makes it really difficult to play in the international space knowing they aren't going to count toward that draft roster before they even get out of rookie ball.

I assume there is good intent behind the rule, but there might be an opportunity to tweak it to be more accommodating while maintaining the intent.

I've been barking up this tree for 14 years now. I believe someone explained the logic one time but for the most part the responses have just been - 'this is the way it is, if you don't like it then quit'.

Taken from the Rules section:

IV. Rosters
1. Each franchise will field a team from their 25 man roster. Each
team is expected to maintain a minimum of 20 active players at all
times, including at least 10 position players and 10 pitchers.
2. In addition to these 25, each team will also have a 15 player
inactive/reserve roster of injured players, minor leaguers or other
players not otherwise in the sim. These players are ineligible to
play.
A. On September 1st active rosters expand to 40 so any player may play
as long as he is in the database.
3. Each team will also have a ten man rookie roster consisting solely
of players eligible for the last two rookie drafts in any combination
of proportions. This brings the total number of players under a GM's
control to 50.



I believe it had something to do with every team having a 40-man roster, however if they wanted to they could expand up to 50 with 'draft' players or something to that effect. In either event, I do think it takes away from some of the fun in the league.

Maybe we should consider something like this ...

Each team will also have a ten man rookie roster consisting solely of players eligible for the last two rookie drafts and/or unprojected but signed players (those players without a ZiPs projection) who are under the age of 21 prior to the start of the current year's IBC draft in any combination of proportions. This brings the total number of players under a GM's control to 55.

Something like this would allow international players and players drafted out of high school to remain on a team's draftee or rookie roster more then two years if they don't have a projection. As far as enforcing it, since our draft started 3/1/2021 a player would have to have born 3/1/2000 or later and not have a projection to be eligible for the rookie roster ...

As long as every team is capable of fielding 26 active not sure why the arbitrary past two draft years even needs to exist. Not sure how it improves the league other than it makes teams cut more fringe players that may or may not get picked up by last place teams.

Guys, sorry. You missed Festivus. The Airing of Grievances was last month...

WhiteSox wrote: ↑Tue Mar 02, 2021 7:37 pm Maybe we should consider something like this ...

Each team will also have a ten man rookie roster consisting solely of players eligible for the last two rookie drafts and/or unprojected but signed players (those players without a ZiPs projection) who are under the age of 21 prior to the start of the current year's IBC draft in any combination of proportions. This brings the total number of players under a GM's control to 55.

Something like this would allow international players and players drafted out of high school to remain on a team's draftee or rookie roster more then two years if they don't have a projection. As far as enforcing it, since our draft started 3/1/2021 a player would have to have born 3/1/2000 or later and not have a projection to be eligible for the rookie roster ...

I like the idea of incorporating age/projection/etc. to be counted so it's not solely based on their signing date. I do have two thoughts here though:

1) I don't know that I agree with increasing the roster size again. My gripe was having to make roster decisions to stay legal without really even being able to effectively evaluate someone (which I think expanding the eligibility solves or at least improves). Part of the fun / skill, in my opinion, is keeping tabs on players throughout the season and being able to make those adds when you see something. Adding 5 players per team will thin the available players even more.

2) I don't think this change should be imminent, but something to work towards. Teams should be given a long lead time so they can evaluate their rosters effectively, since many teams made moves ahead of the draft to stay legal with the current set of rules.

Royals wrote: ↑Wed Mar 03, 2021 8:49 am

WhiteSox wrote: ↑Tue Mar 02, 2021 7:37 pm Maybe we should consider something like this ...

Each team will also have a ten man rookie roster consisting solely of players eligible for the last two rookie drafts and/or unprojected but signed players (those players without a ZiPs projection) who are under the age of 21 prior to the start of the current year's IBC draft in any combination of proportions. This brings the total number of players under a GM's control to 55.

Something like this would allow international players and players drafted out of high school to remain on a team's draftee or rookie roster more then two years if they don't have a projection. As far as enforcing it, since our draft started 3/1/2021 a player would have to have born 3/1/2000 or later and not have a projection to be eligible for the rookie roster ...

I like the idea of incorporating age/projection/etc. to be counted so it's not solely based on their signing date. I do have two thoughts here though:

1) I don't know that I agree with increasing the roster size again. My gripe was having to make roster decisions to stay legal without really even being able to effectively evaluate someone (which I think expanding the eligibility solves or at least improves). Part of the fun / skill, in my opinion, is keeping tabs on players throughout the season and being able to make those adds when you see something. Adding 5 players per team will thin the available players even more.

2) I don't think this change should be imminent, but something to work towards. Teams should be given a long lead time so they can evaluate their rosters effectively, since many teams made moves ahead of the draft to stay legal with the current set of rules.

I think we expanded to 55 previously ...

That post had me counting my roster!

WhiteSox wrote: ↑Tue Mar 02, 2021 7:37 pm Maybe we should consider something like this ...

Each team will also have a ten man rookie roster consisting solely of players eligible for the last two rookie drafts and/or unprojected but signed players (those players without a ZiPs projection) who are under the age of 21 prior to the start of the current year's IBC draft in any combination of proportions. This brings the total number of players under a GM's control to 55.

Something like this would allow international players and players drafted out of high school to remain on a team's draftee or rookie roster more then two years if they don't have a projection. As far as enforcing it, since our draft started 3/1/2021 a player would have to have born 3/1/2000 or later and not have a projection to be eligible for the rookie roster ...

Just to be clear I am not floating this as something from ExCo ... rather it was/is just an individual idea to consider addressing the issue noted above in this "discussion" thread.

I think that makes sense. The only reason I can see to have a draft roster in the first place is to enforce managers having some semblance of a farm system. As it’s developed that’s not the issue with our crew and we’ve actually had to put rules in place for people to have actual major leaguers so I would support increased flexibility

I think the benefit to the draft roster is that it forces tough decisions. It makes teams have to make tough cuts, which, in turn, keeps the free agent pool somewhat interesting. I think without parameters, you would see a team of 55 sim-eligible guys and no farm. I understand it would be easier to have no parameters, but I think the league would get pretty boring without them. And I think keeping track of the ages of players to keep on a roster would be an administrative nightmare. At least with draft years, it's pretty easy to identify who's in compliance and who's not.

Tigers wrote: ↑Wed Mar 03, 2021 9:55 pm I think the benefit to the draft roster is that it forces tough decisions. It makes teams have to make tough cuts, which, in turn, keeps the free agent pool somewhat interesting. I think without parameters, you would see a team of 55 sim-eligible guys and no farm. I understand it would be easier to have no parameters, but I think the league would get pretty boring without them. And I think keeping track of the ages of players to keep on a roster would be an administrative nightmare. At least with draft years, it's pretty easy to identify who's in compliance and who's not.

I agree that the rookie or draftee roster serves both a useful purpose and a unique feature to the IBC. Personally, I participate in several other leagues that create and carry "uncarded" players - but none so many as ten (or more as long as a GM can field 26 active with at least 2 Catchers). If we decide to something akin to a simple age requirement on a trial basis I think GMs could self monitor 10 players (actually less then that when you consider that probably some of the 10 will have drafted in the last two years and thus automatically eligible) but I will pledge to monitor for at least a couple years. Being fully retired has its benefits ... I will also start backtracking this year's draft picks to add D.O.B. and B/T so Shawn doesn't have to look them all up. Feel free to include this information on picks going forward.

I'm confused - are we increasing roster sizes to 55 now?

Mets wrote: ↑Wed Mar 03, 2021 11:14 pm I'm confused - are we increasing roster sizes to 55 now?

We've been at 55 for a year or more now, I think?

Tigers wrote: ↑Wed Mar 03, 2021 9:55 pm I think without parameters, you would see a team of 55 sim-eligible guys and no farm.

I agree with the sentiment that it keeps things interesting. But do you really believe this? Which GM? If anything there are not enough GMs pursuing usable sim guys (I know because I was always the beneficiary finding the Corey Kluber types but also the Mike Hessman type AAAA guys). Also it’s worth noting that Zips starts projecting guys earlier and earlier. I fully expect my team has at least 10 guys with projections who are 1 year or more from the majors, so even having all projection guys doesn’t mean one has no farm system. Granted some of those guys are going to get 600+ IBC plate appearances but that’s a conversation for another day.

Tigers wrote: ↑Wed Mar 03, 2021 9:55 pm I think the benefit to the draft roster is that it forces tough decisions. It makes teams have to make tough cuts, which, in turn, keeps the free agent pool somewhat interesting. I think without parameters, you would see a team of 55 sim-eligible guys and no farm. I understand it would be easier to have no parameters, but I think the league would get pretty boring without them. And I think keeping track of the ages of players to keep on a roster would be an administrative nightmare. At least with draft years, it's pretty easy to identify who's in compliance and who's not.

I'm all for tough decisions, but my argument is with ultra young guys, you don't often have anything to go off of to make said decisions. If you draft / acquire players like that you are basically committing to either a dead roster spot until they develop enough or you need to cut them to stay legal for that season. If the rules encourage taking those risks, it allows teams to commit to fully evaluating younger draftees without having to worry about fitting them on an arbitrary draft roster in 2 years when they may not even be physically developed yet.

Mets wrote: ↑Wed Mar 03, 2021 11:14 pm I'm confused - are we increasing roster sizes to 55 now?

Clown shoes...

Giants wrote: ↑Thu Mar 04, 2021 1:06 am

Tigers wrote: ↑Wed Mar 03, 2021 9:55 pm I think without parameters, you would see a team of 55 sim-eligible guys and no farm.

I agree with the sentiment that it keeps things interesting. But do you really believe this? Which GM?

Nick Perry. 100% guarantee. I bet he'd even confirm it lol

I actually don't mind the rule, and I think it is good to ensure that GM's have at least SOME provision for the future of their team. I don't want to make it too complicated (i.e. monitoring age, etc.), but maybe the current rule could be tweaked to a minimum of 6-8 instead of 10? 10 means you are basically forced to have the full complement of draft picks every year or go honkin' wild every other year. 6-8 would at least give some flexibility.

We should also get rid of the rule that a guy doesn’t count toward the draft roster if he has a projection that can be used.