2047 Poll Results: Rule5, DefPos, Lottery
#1
Here are the poll results regarding a Rule 5 draft, position restrictions, and implementation of a draft lottery. Pretty good turnout: I heard from 22 of 23 owners, and did not cast a vote myself.

Issue #1: Rule 5 draft, should we continue to discuss?
- 11 to 11 tie ... if I did vote, I would break it in favor, 12 to 11.
- of the 11 NOs, 2 votes as a soft NO, eg "I might vote YES, depending on the implementation" while 6 did not like the idea in general
- we'll continue further discussion: first we'll decide on whether to have "Rule 5" or "all FA at 30" as poll choice, then we'll have a 2nd poll re: change, or not.

Issue #2: Position Restrictions
- 14 to 8, strong consensus in favor of proposal
- I'll review retrosheet defensive breakdowns to see "who played where" and I'll post the new regulations when they are ready. Still need to add the code in the VGM.

Issue #3: Draft Lottery
- 8 to 14, strong consensus against proposal. Of the NOs, 3 were "soft NOs" while 8 did not idea in general.
- Further discussion regarding implementation of draft lottery tabled for now.

Standard Disclaimer:
As Commish/"benevolent dictator", I reserve the right to unilaterally make any change I deem necessary for the long-term best interests of the league.
Reply
#2
Max's summary re: Rule 5 Draft:
(We'll need to write up something similar for the pros/cons of "all players eligible for FA at 30")

-----
ISSUE: ML quality players are being stashed n the minors too often with zero EXP.

WHY IS THIS AN ISSUE: It shortens careers of many players, augments a tanking strategy (by allowing teams to stash the prospects from their rebuild en-masse), makes the FA system less effective and takes away from a sense of realism as well as the active talent pool overall.

MY SOLUTION: Rule 5 Draft: Any player 24 and older who has not yet lost rookie status is eligible for a Rule 5 Draft.*potentially this is treated as a 2nd round of FA draft, see my implementation note at the bottom of this post*

-BENEFITS: Should make owners call up their prospects for a "cup of coffee" sooner, removing the impetus to stash them in AAA with zero EXP until they are 28 or older. Will make the FA draft deeper as players hit FA sooner. Will further help player movement, as teams will no longer be able to stash guys indefinitely. Will further hurt a "pick farming" strategy (i.e. tanking) as it will become more difficult to keep a ton of prospects into their 30s.

-POTENTIAL ISSUE: Prospects are often not ready at 24.
-- Sub Solution: It doesn't matter. If a prospect is not ready he will get a cup of coffee (often the case in the MLB ) and continue to develop. It is debatable if he will see a slower growth in AAA than LOW, but extra EXP during his prime should balance that out in his performance.

-POTENTIAL ISSUE: Owners will forget to do this, and less active owners will be penalized unfairly.
-- Sub Solution: Perhaps. Remember, though, that poor teams will be gaining better FA players and the highest Rule 5 Draft picks, so that will help them as well.

-POTENTIAL ISSUE: ROY status will be impacted.
-- This is true, but ROY status is already ridiculous, with 28 year old "rookies" coming up all the time. Non-totally developed players will maybe start to win the award with worse stats. Who cares. Seems like small beans.

-POTENTIAL ISSUE:The value of slow developing prospects / late developing prospects will go down.
--Maybe slightly. I'm not sure anyone is going to overlook a good player in the draft simply because you can't stash him as long anymore. At any rate this seems like a small price to pay for more of the prospects we have actually coming up and playing when they are ready.

DIFFICULTY OF IMPLEMENTATION:
- Pretty serious. Holding an entire second draft is no joke for those running the league and this will also slow down the off-season.
- Solutions: Maybe this can just be looped in with the FA draft. Instead of having a separate draft, Rule 5 Draft entries are just listed with a asterisk in the "available to the FA draft reports", and cannot be picked until a new "round 2", in which only Rule 5 players are eligible to be selected.
Reply
#3
Thanks for doing this Ed.

I'm happy to see support for the Rule V/ Age 30 FA change! That will make a difference.

Its too bad that we wont pursue a more comprehensive look at ammi draft overhaul. To me that remains the most important change we could make.

As for defensive restrictions, I voted against it, but seems like the league wants it - so cool with me. I just hope it really does work out as restrictions instead of letting people slide around more than they do now!

M






********

2050, 2044, 2043, 2030, 2027, 2025, 2022 Weaver Cup Winners
2038, 2037, 2036, 2033, 2028, 2023, 2021 IL Champs
25 Polanski Pennants from 2012-2050
1 Weaver Cup, 2 IL Champs, 12 Polanski Pennants 1998-2011
Reply
#4

Looking at the numbers again... if a "soft no" is interpenetrated as a "yes in some cases", that means some solutions would bring us to an 11-11 tie on the draft overhaul.

Doesn't that warrant a closer look?

********

2050, 2044, 2043, 2030, 2027, 2025, 2022 Weaver Cup Winners
2038, 2037, 2036, 2033, 2028, 2023, 2021 IL Champs
25 Polanski Pennants from 2012-2050
1 Weaver Cup, 2 IL Champs, 12 Polanski Pennants 1998-2011
Reply
#5
All for 30 year old being the requirement for being fa eligible.

Totally against a rule 5 draft. Having to put severely under developed players jn pro to get their career started is a little to extreme for me.
1997-2027 Complete Train Wreck!!!
2028,2029, 2037, 2039, 2040 and 2041 Roehm Division Champions
2029, 2037, and 2041 Blizzard League Champions
2029, and 2037 Winners of the Weaver Cup of Ultimate Power!!!
Reply
#6
(09-10-2015, 02:15 PM)rastasquad Wrote: All for 30 year old being the requirement for being fa eligible.

Totally against a rule 5 draft. Having to put severely under developed players jn pro to get their career started is a little to extreme for me.

Yeah I think this is where I'm at as well at this point. The 30 Year FA idea does the same thing, more or less, with WAY less hassle.


********

2050, 2044, 2043, 2030, 2027, 2025, 2022 Weaver Cup Winners
2038, 2037, 2036, 2033, 2028, 2023, 2021 IL Champs
25 Polanski Pennants from 2012-2050
1 Weaver Cup, 2 IL Champs, 12 Polanski Pennants 1998-2011
Reply
#7
Smile
4 Time Weaver Champion 2011,2015,2020,2056
9 Time Blizzard Champion 2011, 2015, 2020, 2022, 2034, 2035, 2055, 2056, 2057
16 Time Roehm Champion 2009, 2011, 2013, 2015, 2018, 2019,  2020, 2021, 2022, 2034, 2035, 2051, 2054, 2055, 2056, 2057
Reply
#8
(09-10-2015, 02:31 PM)Max Wrote:
(09-10-2015, 02:15 PM)rastasquad Wrote: All for 30 year old being the requirement for being fa eligible.

Totally against a rule 5 draft. Having to put severely under developed players jn pro to get their career started is a little to extreme for me.

Yeah I think this is where I'm at as well at this point. The 30 Year FA idea does the same thing, more or less, with WAY less hassle.

I'm with these two cool dudes right here. 30 y/o FA simple and directly addresses issue.

Jim
Weaver Champs - 1998, 2016, 2041
Inferno League Champs - 1997, 1998, 2007, 2013, 2016, 2018, 2020, 2040, 2041, 2042, 2047, 2048
Lockwood Division Champs - 1997, 1998, 2000, 2001, 2005, 2007, 2013, 2016, 2018, 2020, 2021, 2022, 2040, 2041, 2042, 2047, 2048, 2056
Reply
#9
BTW, don't know if it matters at this point but I'm still not crazy about the defensive restrictions. JMO

Jim
Weaver Champs - 1998, 2016, 2041
Inferno League Champs - 1997, 1998, 2007, 2013, 2016, 2018, 2020, 2040, 2041, 2042, 2047, 2048
Lockwood Division Champs - 1997, 1998, 2000, 2001, 2005, 2007, 2013, 2016, 2018, 2020, 2021, 2022, 2040, 2041, 2042, 2047, 2048, 2056
Reply
#10
ibf_ph34r.....not thinking this defense thing is a good idea
4 Time Weaver Champion 2011,2015,2020,2056
9 Time Blizzard Champion 2011, 2015, 2020, 2022, 2034, 2035, 2055, 2056, 2057
16 Time Roehm Champion 2009, 2011, 2013, 2015, 2018, 2019,  2020, 2021, 2022, 2034, 2035, 2051, 2054, 2055, 2056, 2057
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)