|
|
Post by Rusty Trombones - Jackson on Aug 17, 2008 11:57:24 GMT -5
Pervin's thoughts about calling up MiLB players to keep and Bunge's idea of expanding the limit of MLB keepers got me thinking..... I'm not saying we should do this, it's just a thought for the future, I wonder what you guys think.
What if instead of having to call up guys that have lost their MiLB eligibility, we could leave them on the MiLB roster or send them down just before they lost eligibility if they were already on our MLB roster. As long as they stayed on the MiLB roster that would retain that status, regardless of AB's or IP's. If they were called up at any point after having accumulated 130 AB's or 50 IP's, they would THEN lose their rookie status. This would allow non-competing teams to keep 'tweener' young players an extra year. Guys who you'd like to keep but will lose their rookie status before the year is out, and will go back into the pot the next year. Teams who are contending will have a tough decision to make if a player is really helping them, they might let the guy lose his rookie status in order to help their team that year. It would be a lot like the real life MLB teams who keep the arbitration clock going on young players they'd like to keep an extra year.
This idea would weaken the MLB-ready young talent pool in the MLB draft, but would make the MiLB draft much more deep, and allow us to build up our teams a little faster because we'd have a few guys who could be called up right away the next year. I'd love to be able to send down a Steve Pearce or a Jose Arredondo just before they lose eligibility, and I think a lot of teams have young players they'll hate to lose, but don't have a choice.
This could be crazy, and if it is I blame it on the drugs...but just a thought, it would add a little more strategy, and VALUE to young players who aren't having stud rookie seasons, but are very much worth keeping.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 17, 2008 18:04:04 GMT -5
OK, so in the event Angel Villalona hits the MLB and doesn't perform well enough to start on a fantasy team until his third full year, I'm just going to keep him unactivated until he's doing well.
Sounds like a big pile of shit to me... haha.
|
|
|
|
Post by varsity18 on Aug 17, 2008 18:39:55 GMT -5
Something like this shouldn't be enacted this year though. Just in my case alone I traded Broadway and Harrison To koufax because I knew they would likely lose eligibilty. Just saying..
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 17, 2008 19:10:39 GMT -5
I don't really care either way, I just know I'd vote for more keepers starting next season.
|
|
|
|
Post by varsity18 on Aug 17, 2008 19:20:17 GMT -5
Yea im not against something being enacted next year..
|
|
|
|
Post by Rusty Trombones - Jackson on Aug 17, 2008 21:31:08 GMT -5
OK, so in the event Angel Villalona hits the MLB and doesn't perform well enough to start on a fantasy team until his third full year, I'm just going to keep him unactivated until he's doing well. Sounds like a big pile of shit to me... haha. What's the problem with that? If he never makes it you'll have wasted a valuable keeper spot for years. You could never play him or he wouldn't be a rookie anymore. I don't really get why this is a pile of shit. It's just an idea. But lick my balls anyway. |
|
|
|
Post by Rusty Trombones - Jackson on Aug 17, 2008 21:32:16 GMT -5
Something like this shouldn't be enacted this year though. Just in my case alone I traded Broadway and Harrison To koufax because I knew they would likely lose eligibilty. Just saying.. Definiteyly not this year. All the rules that are in place this year should stay as is. It was just a thought for the future, a way to keep more of a 'team' together, and a way to keep some guys that you'd like to keep but can't. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 17, 2008 22:02:02 GMT -5
I'm just messin' with you. Although I am not sure what good this will do to anyone. At least we can recommend it to the "LM" once he gets his shit in gear. This is like getting a referendum approved to get on the vote come next voting season.
One drawback from this, however, is that it allows for very few contributions in the short term considering the current number of MiLB keepers. So yes, I agree with Carl that if we do approve of this amended rule that we should also amend the number of MiLB keepers and, thereafter, MiLB draft rounds (e.g., adding two or three rounds). Or not. I don't care. Fuck it.
I wish I could free Villalona from PK's Neverland Ranch, especially if this rule is in place. And as I say that, yes -- I realize I sound a little gay.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 17, 2008 22:26:11 GMT -5
and a way to keep some guys that you'd like to keep but can't.
My take on this: If they lose there MiLB and you don't call them up after 7 days then they become FA and then any team can pick that player. Thats the rule now and that should be the rule forever. Awesome rule in place Mack....but we need to change it? Why?
You said it would weaken the MLB young low price talent. Thats the goal of all the teams trying to find a young low price talent. You also mention value and strategy keeping these type of players, isn't it strategy trying to pick the right ones on your team and watching them become superstars or bums? I'm always checking players on other MiLB roster that are coming close to losing their eligiblilty. Young cheap talent. maybe
How long can you keep these type of players? AB's or IP's limits? years? age? Lot of controversy surrounding this issue trying to keep a MLB active player on your MiLB roster. Why don't we keep everybody we want and have a lesser of a degree MLB & MiLB draft.
I think what Mack has in place is working.
|
|
|
|
Post by Rusty Trombones - Jackson on Aug 18, 2008 7:38:12 GMT -5
and a way to keep some guys that you'd like to keep but can't. My take on this: If they lose there MiLB and you don't call them up after 7 days then they become FA and then any team can pick that player. Thats the rule now and that should be the rule forever. Awesome rule in place Mack....but we need to change it? Why? You said it would weaken the MLB young low price talent. Thats the goal of all the teams trying to find a young low price talent. You also mention value and strategy keeping these type of players, isn't it strategy trying to pick the right ones on your team and watching them become superstars or bums? I'm always checking players on other MiLB roster that are coming close to losing their eligiblilty. Young cheap talent. maybe How long can you keep these type of players? AB's or IP's limits? years? age? Lot of controversy surrounding this issue trying to keep a MLB active player on your MiLB roster. Why don't we keep everybody we want and have a lesser of a degree MLB & MiLB draft. I think what Mack has in place is working. Gary I never said we need to change anything. It was just an idea. You said: "isn't it strategy trying to pick the right ones on your team and watching them become superstars or bums?" Yes it is, and that's why I proposed the idea. I think several teams have young players they can't keep because they lost their MiLB eligibility, but haven't performed well enough to supplant already producing MLB talent. Those teams would like to see if their young players turn into to something instead of tossing them back after only 1 year. I agree that the system in place works, no changes need to be made, again it was only an idea. I liked it because it felt more like real baseball, since teams would never just release a stud young player like Steve Pearce after 1 poor season. It's all good, I'm up for anything that involves more keepers, I've had to trade too many guys I wanted to keep, and too many more will just get thrown back in. I also don't belive that just because Mack set something up a certain way, it should stay that way forever. This league is truly great, but he's never done anything like this, neither have the rest of us. I think it's been pretty clear that in this first year there have been some tweaks that have needed to be made, and that will probably be the case for our first off-season as well. |
|
|
|
Post by Ninja Warriors (JB) on Aug 18, 2008 11:32:09 GMT -5
I think it is a great idea to add for next year. I think each player should only be eligible for 1 year though. This would give prospects 2 seasons to either prove their worth or be cut. It might not be a bad idea to limit the number of players per team that could be eligible. Otherwise this could have the potential to really weaken the draft.
|
|
|
|
Post by Bobby Ayala - Matt on Aug 18, 2008 14:09:03 GMT -5
I have no problem with implementing this starting next season, with some kind of one or two year limit. If anyone ever did this, it would mean the minor leaguer in question wasn't any good (or else you'd call them up,) and they'd be eating up a MiLB roster spot and maybe a MiLB keeper spot. Not worth it.
The only way it could possibly be worth it to do this would be a situation where your team was already out of the running, AND had better MLB keepers than MiLB keepers, AND the player in question lost their eligibility late in the season. Otherwise it would be more of a hindurance than a benefit.
Can anyone tell me a single player who lost eligibility this year who this would have been the correct strategy for?
|
|
|
|
Post by Ninja Warriors (JB) on Aug 18, 2008 14:18:39 GMT -5
Luke Hochevar. I would have liked to keep him in the minors because he hasn't had a great season. I know he will be a good starter in the future and I am going to keep him but I would be great if I could keep him as an Milb player and be able to keep another MLB guy.
|
|
|
|
Post by Rusty Trombones - Jackson on Aug 18, 2008 15:07:59 GMT -5
I have no problem with implementing this starting next season, with some kind of one or two year limit. If anyone ever did this, it would mean the minor leaguer in question wasn't any good (or else you'd call them up,) and they'd be eating up a MiLB roster spot and maybe a MiLB keeper spot. Not worth it. The only way it could possibly be worth it to do this would be a situation where your team was already out of the running, AND had better MLB keepers than MiLB keepers, AND the player in question lost their eligibility late in the season. Otherwise it would be more of a hindurance than a benefit. Can anyone tell me a single player who lost eligibility this year who this would have been the correct strategy for? This is exactly what I was talking about. It really wouldn't affect the league that much, and any owner wanting to do it would have a tough decision to make.....keep the guy up if he's helping you, or hold him in the minors and use him the next year, costing you a MiLB keeper spot. My team is a great example, I have good MLB keepers but a poor MiLB system. I was also out of it early, so when Steve Pearce and Jose Arredondo lose their eligibility, I'm going to lose them at the end of the year. Neither is that great a player, Pearce is getting old fast but has upside, and will probably have a job next year. Arredondo will be a top holds/ERA/WHIP guy, and could close if K-Rod leaves next year. Neither is even close to being worth a MLB keeper for me, but if I could send them down now and keep them I probably would. Just something to think about. I like the idea of allowing this only for 1 year too. |
|
|
|
Post by Rusty Trombones - Jackson on Aug 18, 2008 15:12:04 GMT -5
Luke Hochevar. I would have liked to keep him in the minors because he hasn't had a great season. I know he will be a good starter in the future and I am going to keep him but I would be great if I could keep him as an Milb player and be able to keep another MLB guy. Exactly. The Royals aren't close to giving up on him, and neither should the B's. He has a young player that was a #1 overall pick, and makes a poor keeper for MLB, but a great keeper for MiLB. Another year to wait on him would be perfect. It sucks to have to give up on a guy after not even playing a full year, just enough to lose MiLB eligibility, and it sucks to have to send a quality MLB player back into the pool to take a gamble on a struggling young player. |
|
|
|
Post by Rusty Trombones - Jackson on Aug 18, 2008 15:14:54 GMT -5
And just so were clear, I'm not lobbying for this so I can keep Pearce. I've mentioned him several times only as an example. If anything were to change It would have to be starting next year for sure.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 18, 2008 16:55:23 GMT -5
At this moment it is 10 MLB keepers & 8 MiLB keepers. Is that correct?
I like those 2 examples: Pearce & Hockevar. I know Hockevar went over and Pearce is close, will they be kept as MLB keepers this year or MiLB keepers? I have 2 similar type players. So will I be able to keep them as MiLB keepers this year? Will this take into effect 2009 or 2010? What criteria will be used to determine what player can be kept as MiLB keepers?
|
|
|
|
Post by varsity18 on Aug 18, 2008 17:19:31 GMT -5
I dont believe this should take effect this year, and even if i didnt have a say Mack would need to be here.
|
|
|
|
Post by Bobby Ayala - Matt on Aug 18, 2008 18:15:20 GMT -5
Luke Hochevar. I would have liked to keep him in the minors because he hasn't had a great season. I know he will be a good starter in the future and I am going to keep him but I would be great if I could keep him as an Milb player and be able to keep another MLB guy. I stand corrected, I think. At the time Hochevar lost his eligibility his ERA was hovering around 4; one could argue he should've been called up after 3 of his first 5 starts were Ws and QSs. If you were still holding him in your MiLB system you probably would've called him up when he got hot in June, and if you didn't, you would've been using this rule to your own detriment. Anyway, I would vote against this change, in all seriousness. This deviates from how the actual MLB does it, which has always been our model, but more importantly this idea takes away a lot of risk in drafting minor leaguers. I drafted a certain number of MiLBers who would lose eligibility this year, a certain number who would lose it next year, and balanced that with people who had no chance of getting called up this or next year, so I could create a constant stream. It has always been a factor in evaluating players, but if now I can circumvent that, and delay someone being called up as long as I want, that changes the value of every minor leaguer. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 18, 2008 19:49:14 GMT -5
Couldn't we just increase the keepers for the MLB roster to easily solve the problem?
|
|
|
|
Post by varsity18 on Aug 18, 2008 20:40:24 GMT -5
If we are going to increase the keeper size we minus well make it a dynasty league.
|
|
|
|
Post by Ninja Warriors (JB) on Aug 18, 2008 23:04:57 GMT -5
A dynasty league could be fun. It would make having a strong minor league system a must. You would have to grow your own talent to remain competitive. That could be fun but it could also screw some people who have a really weak Milb system. It would be hard to do that though with all of the draft pick trading that has occurred.
|
|
|
|
Post by varsity18 on Aug 18, 2008 23:06:43 GMT -5
It would have to wait til the year after next prolly to allow people to make proper moves to prepare for it.
|
|
|
|
Post by Ninja Warriors (JB) on Aug 20, 2008 15:47:00 GMT -5
I agree. I like the idea of possibly adding to the number of keepers each year.
|
|
|
|
Post by Bobby Ayala - Matt on Aug 20, 2008 16:12:17 GMT -5
I'd rather not add more keepers.
But if we have to, let's not add any more than 1 a year, and let's cap it at 12-14.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 20, 2008 17:35:03 GMT -5
I just really don't give a shit personally about how important the redraft is each year. I think it's harder to draft one team and work from there, which is why I'd rather add more keepers and water down the draft importance a bit.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 20, 2008 21:19:49 GMT -5
The thing is this is a league where we have a minor league roster and have to consider age, salary, and upside with our MLB players. If part of the challenge is developing a strong all around team for the long term I don't see why others should benefit every year b/c other teams did a good job building their system. That's why in the future I'd like to see the keepers pushed up to 15 at least. Otherwise what was the point of having 8 MiLB keepers too... just to have a strong MiLB team?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 21, 2008 10:18:49 GMT -5
bump... I don't know about everyone else, but this is something I'd like to get a better idea about before the trade deadline. I realize that is probably too much to ask, but I feel like it could definitely affect the way people view certain players as the deadline approaches. Especially MiLBers that are closer to the MLB.
|
|
|
|
Post by Rusty Trombones - Jackson on Aug 21, 2008 11:13:53 GMT -5
bump... I don't know about everyone else, but this is something I'd like to get a better idea about before the trade deadline. I realize that is probably too much to ask, but I feel like it could definitely affect the way people view certain players as the deadline approaches. Especially MiLBers that are closer to the MLB. I don't think anything should change for next year before the deadline...and Mack hasn't been around so I would make moves and trades based on the current settings. |
|
|
|
Post by Rusty Trombones - Jackson on Aug 21, 2008 11:15:28 GMT -5
I'd rather not add more keepers. But if we have to, let's not add any more than 1 a year, and let's cap it at 12-14. I agree with 1 a year, any more than that is a little drastic....maybe 1 a year for the next 5 years, capping at 15. |
|
