Draft Lottery

[Royals]

One topic that came up in the last couple days among the ExCo is the idea of doing a lottery for the top few draft picks, like the NBA does. This is prompted by the same thing that prompts the NBA to do it, the top few picks are so valuable, teams may be tempted to tank on purpose in order to get a hold on them. A lottery would discourage such tanking.

Any thoughts?

[Yankees]

It's a great idea - I think facilitating this would bring up a lot of questions and be very difficult - but if we could find a way to do it, I think it's a great way to drive some extra fun in the off-season...

[Royals]

actually,the implementatation would be pretty easy. Every team eligible gets a set of numbers designated for them (i.e 1-25, 26-35), then we use a random number generator to generate a number for pick 1, a number for pick 2 and a number for pick 3.
I'm not entirely behind the idea and the ExCo has by no means reached any kind of consensus on the topic as there is also the risk of teams that really need the help most getting the shaft while a team that's already in position to contend next year may get a top 3 pick (see this year's NBA draft).

[RedSox]

I don't know how many of you have seen the ad where the kid says something along the lines of: "I don't care what it is. If it involves me and Mike Wallace, it's always going to end the same, with me putting him in the wall."

That's how anything involving myself and 'random' selection ends. With me in the wall.

Lifelong Celtics fan. Chances of the balls falling as they did: 7 in 10,000 and I won't even talk about the Tim Duncan year.

I've never drafted higher than 8th in a ten team FBB league or 9th in a 12.

In the mini-draft for this league, I drafted last.

In the other start-up league I'm in I drafted 23rd or 24th out of 30.

It gets made up in other ways, as I should probably be dead several times over, but when it comes to lotteries I'm SOL every time.

Personally I'd prefer a rule V draft over a draft lottery.

[Royals]

A Rule V/5 draft has been discussed in the past and it's not something I'm opposed to personally.

[Mets]

We do a Rule V in another league...there's always about 5 GM's that get pissy..but in the end, good teams might loose their 39th & 40th best player, and those players are about the 30th & 31st best player on bad teams...it keeps the talent moving a little bit...but mostly...everyone is just in it for that once in a lifetime steal that someone messes up on and doesn't protect..

Usually the top talent in Rule V's consist of the Sean Green's & Emil Brown's of the world.

[Rangers]

As someone who would presumably benefit from it this season, a draft lottery is a terrible idea. We talk about how we want to keep competitive balance, yet we give guys who are far from the worst team a good chance to get the first pick(s)? Makes no sense.

[Astros]

Yeah I don't think this is a good idea. What's the purpose besides changes for the sake of changes. If I have the worst record in the league, I don't want to chance a team that won 75 games getting the top pick and I get shafted

[Giants]

I think Bren calling this discussion only about a draft lottery is a little disingenuous (SAT word of the day). The ExCo discussion came about as a means to deal with the problem of teams tanking in September to try and get better draft picks, which impacts the playoff races and is generally all-around lame. I threw out a couple of proposals from the top of my head, one being draft lottery (which Bren seems to like) and the other being that we determine the draft order based on the standings September 1, which I like better. A draft lottery provides somewhat less incentive to tank because tanking is less reliable, but as we saw in the NBA this past year a lottery system by no means eliminates tanking. If we set the draft order September 1 it will give teams no incentive to tank in September, and it will give an extra month for people to trade draft picks (I would further propose that draft pick deals be allowed to commence 9/1 to make up for the trading deadline on players). Come September 1 we all know where are teams stand and whether we have a chance at the playoffs so the decision to tank is easier, many more teams are in the race August 1 which makes the decisions for those managers to tank less obvious. While there might be some shifting around the top spots, it's unlikely that the worst team on September 1 is likely to be that far away from the bottom by the end of the year, and I think this method is more likely to give a fairer draft order than a randomized lottery. Just throwing the idea out there, feedback is appreciated.

[Mets]

Also, how do we determine the difference between tanking the season and trying out youngsters for next year.

A team that sells of their vets at the deadline and plays a bunch of AAA guys could be considered tanking the season, but it's also considered rebuilding..

Point is, it's a hard thing to prove anyway. If the MLB doesn't do a lottery, than neither should the IBC. This draft will be deep enough where the top ten picks could all be difference makers.

[Dodgers]

There's no such thing as trying out youngsters for next year. Because of the projection based system each year is statistically separate, players don't gain experience or the whatnot by playing the year before. The only answer is tanking if they are benching their best players. I have no problem with rebuilding by trading talent away, but not playing the talent you have is an obvious earmark of tanking.

[RedSox]

My September schedule:

Sox, Yanks, Jays, O's - 21 games.
60 win Mariners - 4 games.
Angels - 3 games.

Closing the draft door on 9/1 probably costs me any chance of the number 1 pick. Even though I've swept the Indians and A's(edit: Sorry, 3 of 4) and taken a series from the Sox in the last two weeks I was looking at maybe 8-10 wins in September because of the difficulty of my schedule. 8-10 wins that could decide the division and wild card. I'm still motivated.

Also, the Rays, Nats, and Brewers are first year teams and given the talent pool we had to pick from probably deserve to be in the bottom five.

The real problem as I see it is the concentration of talent in the top teams. My little win spurt has come after picking up two players dropped by one of the top teams and plugging them into my team as starters. If the 49th and 50th players on those teams are better than my 20th player, how is anyone to catch up?

How about if the draft locks the day the last playoff spot is decided?

[Royals]

Yeah I don't think this is a good idea. What's the purpose besides changes for the sake of changes. If I have the worst record in the league, I don't want to chance a team that won 75 games getting the top pick and I get shafted

The purpose, as I stated in the first post is a concern about GM's tanking to get better draft spots. I'm not sure it's the best way to deal with it but as it was the idea which would most effect the dynamics of the league, I thought it should be brought up for full discussion.
That was something you guys wanted to see more of right?

Also, how do we determine the difference between tanking the season and trying out youngsters for next year.

A team that sells of their vets at the deadline and plays a bunch of AAA guys could be considered tanking the season, but it's also considered rebuilding..

I'll make this perfectly clear right now. Playing prospects now in the IBC will tell you absolutely nothing about how they'll do next season. Nothing. We'll have completely different projections next season.
Trading off Vets to rebuild is one thing. Benching them for players with worse projections is tanking.

[Mets]

Yeah I don't think this is a good idea. What's the purpose besides changes for the sake of changes. If I have the worst record in the league, I don't want to chance a team that won 75 games getting the top pick and I get shafted

The purpose, as I stated in the first post is a concern about GM's tanking to get better draft spots. I'm not sure it's the best way to deal with it but as it was the idea which would most effect the dynamics of the league, I thought it should be brought up for full discussion.
That was something you guys wanted to see more of right?

Also, how do we determine the difference between tanking the season and trying out youngsters for next year.

A team that sells of their vets at the deadline and plays a bunch of AAA guys could be considered tanking the season, but it's also considered rebuilding..

I'll make this perfectly clear right now. Playing prospects now in the IBC will tell you absolutely nothing about how they'll do next season. Nothing. We'll have completely different projections next season.
Trading off Vets to rebuild is one thing. Benching them for players with worse projections is tanking.

I'll beg to differ on a few occassions....some guys just don't do well in some parks...ie: I'm the M's in another league...if my team wasn't out of it...I wouldn't have pitched Joe Kennedy as much as I did...turns out Joe Kennedy kills for me at Safeco. This season, given his projection very similar to last years, he has killed for me again. If I wasn't out of the playoffs, Joe Kennedy wouldn't have made the cut...

Granted it's not the status quo, but my point is that teams out of the race will try things that they normally probably woudn't try. Just something to think about when trying to determine if a team is tanking...granted, if a team is benching Vlad..it's a different story.

[Athletics]

My September schedule:

Sox, Yanks, Jays, O's - 21 games.
60 win Mariners - 4 games.
Angels - 3 games.

Closing the draft door on 9/1 probably costs me any chance of the number 1 pick. Even though I've swept the Indians and A's(edit: Sorry, 3 of 4) and taken a series from the Sox in the last two weeks I was looking at maybe 8-10 wins in September because of the difficulty of my schedule. 8-10 wins that could decide the division and wild card. I'm still motivated.

Also, the Rays, Nats, and Brewers are first year teams and given the talent pool we had to pick from probably deserve to be in the bottom five.

The real problem as I see it is the concentration of talent in the top teams. My little win spurt has come after picking up two players dropped by one of the top teams and plugging them into my team as starters. If the 49th and 50th players on those teams are better than my 20th player, how is anyone to catch up?

How about if the draft locks the day the last playoff spot is decided?

Ill race you.

[BlueJays]

a general "integrity" clause added to the charter would seem to solve the issue. this can be a blanket clause to cover a lot of things.. but setup a rule/penalty for those who tank. as has been stated, its easy to tell if someone is tanking it vs. rebuilding. trading away talent is fine. benching elgible starters to gain draft spots is not.

for example the clause can state:

"every GM in the IBC will play the sim with the upmost integrity. this means playing & following all set rules as outlined in the charter to best of his ability..yada yada.. GM WILL FIELD BEST POSSIBLE LINEUP AT ALL TIMES.. IF YOU'RE IN THE IBC YOU PLAY TO WIN..blahblahblah..keeping team updated/current, following documented DL/inelgible player guidlines, etc etc..

fine tune it how you want.. hell have andrew write up something elegant.. but come up with a severe penalty for those who tank & add the clause. shit.. remove a team that tanks from the draft entirely. that's discouragement. problem solved..

fuck a lotto. we play baseball. not jungleball. a lotto.. ha. too many issues with that.. let alone ensuring true and verified random drawing. plus it takes away from competitive balance.

institute the clause, decide on an extreme penalty(make it severe so no one dare break it) & be done with it.