IBC

The idea of some sort of Rule V draft has been kicked around a couple times lately in a couple different threads. While I don't think a Rule V draft would be a 'be all, end all' solution to competitive balance, I think it is a start for addressing some of the inequities and would add some off-season spice.

Obviously, how it is conducted would be a very important factor and I have some ideas of my own on that, but I think the ExCo would like to hear opinions and ideas on the subject before we begin our own internal discussions.

Everybody exposes 5 players to the draft. When one of your players is picked you can pull back one of your remaining players. Draft order: worst to first.

I'll repost:

Personally - I LOVE the idea of a 25 man Rule IV - with the allowance of adding 5 more protections for each round - but that's probably complicated...

With only 50 players per team, there is no way a rule 5 is needed. Right now there are dozens and dozens of players available in the free agent market, that are better 'bets' than most teams players #45-50.

I'm just about one of the worst teams in the league, but have worked hard to end that soon. As it is, almost every player I cut, already get's picked up by someone else. If most teams exposed, say 5 players, I would be losing out. There would be virtually no players I would want, yet me, one of the worst teams, would for sure lose players.

As it is, players I cut for the upcoming draft, will be picked up by other teams.

All a "Rule 5" does is help the GM's that only want to look as far as others teams roster for players, as opposed to what is out there in the free agent market.

Some of the 'so called' "bad" teams, have some of the best #45-50 players out there. The "worst" team the Brewers, will probably have the most "TOP-100" prospects in the league next year. The Devil Ray's have quietly done a great job, signing some of the best free agent prospects out there.

I just see this as entirely unfair to the teams that do the 'work' to find those good #45-50 players. Lots of teams could care less about the bottom of their rosters during the season, while 'building' teams care a great deal about those spots.

Why is it fair that Gabe (just as an example) gets to trade his deep depth away during the season, and then "re-up" on others rosters after the season?

I think what is happening right now, is best for the league. You see the teams that care about their 'bottom' players, are making many moves right now.

If people open their eye's, you would see we are having the equivelent of a "Rule 5", right now!

DevilRays Luke 6-Gregerson P Create Sep 6, 12:53 pm
DevilRays Simon 6-Castro P Release Sep 6, 12:51 pm
Rockies Ron Mahay MR Sign Sep 6, 10:49 am
Rockies Juan Uribe SS Release Sep 6, 10:48 am
DBacks David 6-Robertson P Create Sep 6, 2:52 am
DBacks Shairon 0-Martis p Release Sep 6, 2:50 am
Mariners Jonathan 0-Albaladejo P Create Sep 5, 8:05 pm
Mariners Gary Burnham 1B Release Sep 5, 8:03 pm
Cubs Randy Messenger MR Sign Sep 5, 7:42 pm
Cubs Kevin Frandsen 2B Sign Sep 5, 7:42 pm
Cubs Jim Johnson SP Release Sep 5, 7:41 pm
Cubs Elliot Johnson 2B Release Sep 5, 7:41 pm
BlueJays Scott Schoeneweis MR Sign Sep 5, 5:38 pm
BlueJays Buddy Carlyle MR Release Sep 5, 5:38 pm
Astros Chris Duffy CF Claim Sep 5, 4:14 pm
Astros Travis Bowyer MR Release Sep 5, 4:14 pm
Astros James 0-Skelton C Create Sep 5, 2:11 pm
Astros Adma 6-Witter C Release Sep 5, 2:11 pm
DevilRays Nick 5-Weglarz of Sign Sep 4, 11:43 pm
DevilRays Oneli Perez MR Release Sep 4, 11:41 pm
DevilRays Val Pascucci 1B Sign Sep 4, 3:03 pm
DevilRays Jeff DaVanon RF Release Sep 4, 3:03 pm
Orioles Jack Hannahan 1B Sign Sep 4, 10:33 am
Orioles Henry Owens MR Sign Sep 4, 10:31 am
Orioles Scott Spiezio 2B Release Sep 4, 10:31 am
Orioles Chris Duffy CF Release Sep 4, 10:28 am
Orioles Scott 6-Sizemore 2B Sign Sep 4, 10:17 am
Orioles Zachary Ward SP Sign Sep 4, 10:17 am
Orioles Scott Schoeneweis MR Release Sep 4, 10:16 am
Orioles Emil Brown LF Release Sep 4, 10:15 am
Orioles Mitch 0-Einertson of Sign Sep 4, 10:07 am
Orioles Jerry Hairston 2B Release Sep 4, 10:06 am
Angels Edwin Jackson MR Claim Sep 4, 9:39 am
Angels Garrett 0-Mock p Release Sep 4, 9:39 am
DBacks Jerry 0-Blevins P Sign Sep 3, 11:45 pm
DBacks Lou 0-Marson C Sign Sep 3, 11:45 pm
DBacks Adam Rosales SS Sign Sep 3, 11:44 pm
DBacks Nick 5-Weglarz of Release Sep 3, 11:43 pm
DBacks Francisco 6-Pena C Release Sep 3, 11:43 pm
DBacks Zachary 6-McAllister P Release Sep 3, 11:43 pm
Dodgers Daniel 0-Putnam of Release Sep 3, 8:50 pm
Astros Jarrett 0-Hoffpauir 2B Sign Sep 3, 8:38 pm
Athletics Drew 6-Miller P Traded to Tigers Sep 3, 2:18 pm
Tigers Russell Branyan RF Traded to Athletics Sep 3, 2:18 pm
Reds Reid 5-Engel OF Create Sep 3, 12:28 pm
Reds Stephen 6-King SS Release Sep 3, 12:23 pm
DBacks David 5-Hernandez p Sign Sep 3, 9:36 am
DBacks Edwin Jackson MR Release Sep 3, 9:36 am
Athletics Antonio 0-Bastardo P Create Sep 1, 11:54 pm
Athletics Jon 6-Still C Release Sep 1, 11:53 pm
DBacks Ian 0-Desmond ss Sign Sep 1, 11:43 pm
DBacks Mitch 0-Einertson of Release Sep 1, 11:43 pm
Royals Michael 6-Mckenry C Create Sep 1, 10:56 pm
Royals Matt Treanor C Sign Sep 1, 9:45 pm
Athletics Rich 0-Thompson P Create Sep 1, 6:42 pm
Athletics Lou 0-Marson C Release Sep 1, 6:37 pm
Astros Jarrett 0-Hoffpauir 2B Sign Sep 1, 2:52 pm
Astros Rheal Cormier MR Release Sep 1, 2:51 pm
DBacks Luis Jimenez 1B Sign Sep 1, 12:01 pm
DBacks Jarrett 0-Hoffpauir 2B Release Sep 1, 12:01 pm
Rockies Willie 0-Collazo P Create Sep 1, 7:08 am

yeah im kind of against a rule V.

I think Pat hit pretty close to what I was thinking personally, but it would be only one round, no team would lose more than one player and they'd get one pullback.

i'll sumarize real quick my suggestion in the salary thread.

protect 30 of 40 man roster.
protect 3 of 10 "draft" roster.
combine unprotected players into same pool as upcoming 07 draftees.

we have a larger draft w/"lesser" teams being able to go in more directions. could conceivably rebuild bottom 10 of their roster pretty quick. everyone fills out the remaining 17 spots. since the collection of talent includes 07 & ruleV talent teams can overhaul a variety ways.

new bullpen? conceivable
rebuild bench & depth? doable
rebuild the farm? plausable
lots of options & scenarios possible..

might I suggest that if everyone is up for the task we could even run this kind of setup thru a mock trial right @ seasons end? we could analyze results then decide if this is going to benefit the league.. if we want it.. etc.

While I think your suggestion goes a little too deeply into the rosters, I'm most intrigued by one suggestion you made. There really is no harm whatsoever in doing a mock trial of this system or any other.

The MLB Rule V draft leaves alone the bulk of minor league players and the 40 man roster, giving other teams a shot at those borderline players. I'd personally advocate sticking closer to that concept.

I think keping it as a separate event from the Rookie draft would be preferable as well, though I applaud thinking outside the box on that.

I would be in favor of a rule V draft, but, in all honesty, that's because it plays right into my hands as far my personal strategy goes. (As Jag pointed out). However, if we're doing this for the sake of competitive balance, then one round seems kind of pointless. Then again, five seems pretty harsh, so maybe something in the middle like 3? Getting player number 45 from someone's roster is not going to make a difference. Getting a 45, a 48 and 49 actually could help a team out.

Repost of my post in the salary thread because it's more belonging here:

For my own reasons, I hate the idea of a Rule V draft. I spend money on BA and BP subscriptions every year. I have no desire to even give away my 50th player if I did the research and found him via an article on one of the sites and basically paid for the prospect. Is it possible that said player may never be worth anything? Sure. But there are plenty of top 100 prospects that popup throughout the year and BA/BP help me find those.

I see no reason to reward other people for my effort. I never used to have a farm system. Now pretty much every prospect I have I like for one reason or another. I'm not willing to let another GM's apathy interfere with that.

Nate's suggestion certainly would make the offseason draft more interesting. If people are worried enough about losing the scouting work they've done, etc, then we could put in a little more protection. Maybe at the end of each round allow teams to forgo their pick in the upcoming round and pull back one of their guys if they want.

That's an interesting suggestion...

I think the Rule 5 Draft is def. a good idea and will certainly help prevent some of the big powerhouses from stashing away some of their top talent. But JP i do see the point you are making, spending money on those subscriptions is in essence like having your own scouts, scouting the deeper talent which hopefully make a big impact on your team, which i also think is a valid point. But most teams in the league(I think) have subscriptions to these same sources and are gaining the same knowledge you are..........correct me if im wrong.

now now

how many people suscribe vs how many have "subscriptions"

regardless there are points for and against. in the longrun i dont see this being anything more than an annoyance rather than any longterm solution to competitive balance. will it help the bottom teams? ever ever so slightly. if even that. you can find comparable talent on the free agent market, just my opinion.

your probably right that most of the players we would throw into the V draft are just as good as from Free Agents, but I think like Bren said above, that we should do a mock draft to see how it pans out before a decision is reached.

I'm calling total bullshit on that subscription thing - sorry guys. Having a subscription is an advantage - no doubt - but being able to use it is CLEARLY different from "having it."

If you are a consistently better scouter and judge of talent based on what you hear from the subscriptions, then you will consistently pull better players. If you lose the 34th best player from your roster, you'll have a much easier time filling that spot then Johnny Idontreadshit.

It's the exact same thing as the draft itself - the same GM's have the best drafts, regardless of draft position, year in and year out. Honestly, I would put my ability to consistently draft very good players as one of the main reasons I was able to make my team better from the absolute shit I inherited when I joined the league.

The Rule V draft should just be another way for the better talent evaluators, if they are doing their homework, to perhaps lose a player - but to also perhaps find a gem from another team that undervalues prospects.

Bottom Line - You do your homework in this league, you get ahead.

question about the Rule 5 draft and sorry if its dumb or was mentioned above, but doesn't the Rule 5 draft work that you have to keep your draftee on the 25 man roster for an entire year unless you waive him? if so how would that work with -5- -6- players or would we do an abridged version of the draft.

Brewers wrote:question about the Rule 5 draft and sorry if its dumb or was mentioned above, but doesn't the Rule 5 draft work that you have to keep your draftee on the 25 man roster for an entire year unless you waive him? if so how would that work with -5- -6- players or would we do an abridged version of the draft.

I've pondered the same thing and personally I'd be inclined to leave that part out. it'd be a pain in the ass to track and our waiver system doesn't work the same way as MLB's.

If we are going to continue this conversation, can we please change the name from "Rule 5" to something like "Dispersal Heist".

What you all are talking about resembles the "Rule 5" in no way.

The reason for the "Rule 5" in baseball is for the "blocked" players, who HAVE NOT made the teams 40 man rosters. It's an opportunity for that player to be given a chance to play. To allow that player, a chance to stick on someone else's roster. So, when you ONLY have a "40 man" roster, there is NO RESAON for it.
"Rule 5" was not put in place for the TEAMS, it was put in place for the PLAYERS.

All my 40 players I have are very important to the building of my team. Right down to my last signing, lefthanded reliever Jerry Blevins, who figures to be the 2nd lefty in my bullpen. With only 40 players, I can't afford to lose anything. 40 allows for almost no depth in any 1 area.

Now, if we had 60 or 70 man rosters, and I had like 3 extra lefthanded relievers, then I could see the need for a "Rule 5", but when you guys are talking about pilfering someone out of my "40", well then you would have to call it something else.

The only way I could see us having a "Rule 5" with our TEENY-TINY rosters, is if when the PROJECTION DISK comes out, and teams end up with more than 40 SIMMABLE players, those players ALONE, become "Rule 5" players.

Can't say I'm a big fan of the Rule 5 (roster pilfering) concept.

I just don't think it adds anything toward competitive balance. Are you only going to allow the bottom 15 teams to pick in this roster pilfering? Are the top 15 teams going to be excluded from picking?

While the concept is original, I really don't think the combination of the Rule 5 concept merged iwth the New Player draft is a good idea. Are you going to make the top picking teams decide between taking a top prospect or taking a deep roster player from another team? That sounds counter intuiative to me. If the whole point is to help the bad teams get better, then giving them the opportunity to make the mistake of bypassing a top pick for a lesser valued deep roster player seems like a recipe for disaster to me. Just pushes the better draft picks down lower to the teams that are already good. In the long run, I think I draft pretty well, so that would just benefit me, but I don't see how the concept would really help the lesser teams.

I am absolutely opposed to this so-called Rule 5 Draft and I have yet to see one valid agruement that it will enhance the competitive balance in the IBC.

To further the point, when talking about "bad teams", who exactly are we talking about? Let's go by records.

L.A.a - 45 Wins - Dave Taylor, got some crap for trading Schilling, but is actively trying to improve his team.
T.B. - 46 Wins - Patrick Tullar, has came in and sign some of the best free agent prospects, that more vet GM's should have beaten him too.
Mil - 47 Wins - Jake Levine, very active, will have more "TOP-100" prospects than anyone.
Ari- 52 Wins - ME, active.
Was- 52 Wins - New GM, time will tell.
N.Y.n - 55 Wins - Jim Berger, very-very-very active.
Hou - 58 Wins - John Paul Starkey - nuff said!
Det - 58 Wins - Brett Perryman - The Man!
Cle - 61 Wins - Kelly Burke, mark my words, the Central better be scared!
K.C. - 61 Wins - Brett Zalaski, I dare ya, tell him he's "Bad".
S.F. - 64 Wins - Nils Erickson, once he was below .500, Nils went to work on the free agents market, and has quietly been replenishing his minor league system.

So, who in the hell are we talking about when we talk about "BAD TEAMS" that NEED our help, I JUST DON'T SEE IT!

Please...tell me I'm bad...

Second of all - and this may have to go into the smack-talk section as well - I haven't been scared of a Kelly since Kelly Leak. Kelly Burke does nothing for me.

its clear that owners opinions on the matter reflect their style of play, it seems like JP\Jagger\a little myself\ and if im sorry if im wrong but maybe also Brett, whose style of play revolves around prospects and developing them into their future are clearly going to oppose the V draft. Only because they are always looking for "hidden" talent or and their teams survive based on players like that. And then the power houses who im not saying dont look for those prospects but they rely more on the big names like a pujols or an a-rod who they have....its tough for everyone to agree whats good and whats not because we tend to want to do whats best for us rather then what might be better for the league.....I think a trial is the only way to get an accurate count of what the GMs think.

Royals wrote:Please...tell me I'm bad...

Z, you're making me uncomfortable man.