|
|
Post by CEOSouth on Feb 16, 2017 17:28:30 GMT -5
i think i would have cut Matt Harvey if i hadn't designated him doht I think that's what I like about the Active DL Keeper. Yeah, you get that extra, sometimes pivotal roster spot at the end of the season, but you really need to be confident in your decision....a lot can change over the course of a few months. If you made me guess, I'd guess TESL might also be having doubts about Moustakus. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 16, 2017 17:31:39 GMT -5
i think i would have cut Matt Harvey if i hadn't designated him doht I think that's what I like about the Active DL Keeper. Yeah, you get that extra, sometimes pivotal roster spot at the end of the season, but you really need to be confident in your decision....a lot can change over the course of a few months. If you made me guess, I'd guess TESL might also be having doubts about Moustakus. No regret compares to drafting Zimmermann over Arenado. |
|
|
|
Post by CEOSouth on Feb 16, 2017 17:35:59 GMT -5
What do you guys think about putting some rule in that you can't draft a minor in the main draft just to trade him to someone else's minors roster? It would protect the integrity of the minors draft and in general IMO is a pretty lame move. It could be implemented as: if you draft someone in the majors draft you cannot trade him to someone else's minors roster for x months? If you want to burn your 1 minors demotion I have less issue with it... I could get behind that somewhat. Something like: Trades involving Players drafted in the Active Draft with No MLB experience need 8 or 9 votes to pass instead of the usual 7. Would allow for trading of those players to still happen but may require owners to really explain their throught process more on iffy trading of the players. Idk, tossing ideas |
|
|
|
Post by CEOSouth on Feb 16, 2017 17:39:11 GMT -5
There's also a risk you take when you do that. I wouldn't of done it last year, especially drafting two SS, but TIG put himself in the position where he could comfortably take that risk. It seemed to work out, but only because some of you guys bailed him out by trading for them. It could've got ugly and likely may have cost him the title, them roster spots at the end of the season are crucial to have.
But I'm with TESL on the sentiment. Just not sure how to fix it. Drafting guys with no intention on being in the MLB in the Active Draft kind of does defeat the purpose in even having a Minors Lottery and Draft.
|
|
|
|
Post by CEOSouth on Feb 16, 2017 17:55:34 GMT -5
I mean, really, with a strong 15 Active Keepers, and with as much as I follow Fantasy, I'm pretty confident I could draft all Minors with my Active Picks, sit on them through the first half of the season, and still come pretty close to making the playoffs....and significantly improve my odds of being better than most of you in the long run.
But then again, I'm not that guy
...TIG
But then again, sometimes good fantasy managing and exploitation go hand in hand. Drafting one had me thinking 'decent fantasy move'. Drafting two had me thinking that maybe the system is broken.
But it just highlights how difficult it is to lay out rules for a dynasty league, especially one kind of unprecedented with minors....you just know someone is going to take advantage of loopholes. As the commish and creator of this league, would I have liked for TIG not to draft Minors Players with his Active Picks? Of course. Do I blame him? Absolutely not.
In TIGs defense I believe he told me beforehand what he was gonna do with his draft pick to gauge my thoughts. I certainly didn't tell him not to do it.
|
|
|
|
Post by CEOSouth on Feb 16, 2017 18:01:30 GMT -5
I guess we could say something like:
2016 MLB First year players are available to roster in the 2017 Minors Draft
Instead of the current
2016 MLB first year draft players can be drafted in 2017
|
|
|
|
Post by DrTorch on Feb 16, 2017 18:04:14 GMT -5
well i've always taken the stance that you don't punish players for trying to win, which to me means changing rules mid-season
off-season tweaks are to be expected, MLB still tweaks and they've been around forever, it would be the height of hubris to think we won't have to tweak the league on occasion
i personally think there was a risk/reward there so it seems like it's already balanced to me but i can see why folks don't like it, let's vote it out and rest easy
|
|
|
|
Post by DrTorch on Feb 16, 2017 18:06:18 GMT -5
also, pulled this off a prospect chat today from a distraught owner:
haha
|
|
|
|
Post by CEOSouth on Feb 16, 2017 18:07:08 GMT -5
Agreed. If we are going to change it, or anything for that matter, the off-season is the time to do it. It is the reason that moist things we vote on don't take effect until the following season or beyond.
And yes, I see the autocorrect typo and I'm leaving it.
|
|
|
|
Post by DrTorch on Feb 16, 2017 18:10:17 GMT -5
I guess we could say something like: 2016 MLB First year players are available to roster in the 2017 Minors Draft Instead of the current 2016 MLB first year draft players can be drafted in 2017 you could also just put a moratorium on sending down traded players for _____ amount of time after the start of the season it would force an owner who drafts minor leaguers to eat up roster spots and at least there would be a bit of a built in penalty for doing it without overtly banning the move...say no traded player demotions til May...that would be something to meditate on |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 16, 2017 18:13:30 GMT -5
BTW, what happened with the 2 week playoffs vote?
|
|
|
|
Post by CEOSouth on Feb 16, 2017 18:33:41 GMT -5
BTW, what happened with the 2 week playoffs vote? Oh lord, the commish forgot. I'll put it up tonight. State your cases for each side of you want. |
|
|
|
Post by DrTorch on Feb 16, 2017 19:30:25 GMT -5
gotta be two week rounds in the playoffs
if you haven't made the playoffs in 20 weeks do you really need 2 more? just take the hint lol
|
|
|
|
Post by tigeralum01 on Feb 16, 2017 20:06:24 GMT -5
I mean, really, with a strong 15 Active Keepers, and with as much as I follow Fantasy, I'm pretty confident I could draft all Minors with my Active Picks, sit on them through the first half of the season, and still come pretty close to making the playoffs....and significantly improve my odds of being better than most of you in the long run. But then again, I'm not that guy ...TIG But then again, sometimes good fantasy managing and exploitation go hand in hand. Drafting one had me thinking 'decent fantasy move'. Drafting two had me thinking that maybe the system is broken. But it just highlights how difficult it is to lay out rules for a dynasty league, especially one kind of unprecedented with minors....you just know someone is going to take advantage of loopholes. As the commish and creator of this league, would I have liked for TIG not to draft Minors Players with his Active Picks? Of course. Do I blame him? Absolutely not. In TIGs defense I believe he told me beforehand what he was gonna do with his draft pick to gauge my thoughts. I certainly didn't tell him not to do it. I did tell you ahead of time my plan. I'm ok either way with it really. The cat is out of the bag now though. I lost the element of surprise |
|
|
|
Post by brownies1 on Feb 16, 2017 21:34:49 GMT -5
First I want to say I'm glad we are all back and I'm looking forward to another great year of fantasy. As for drafting minors I believe that it's not my place to stop someone from doing so if that is how they want to draft. It's a good strategy that I had thought about myself. But I also see why some don't like it. I'm neither for or against this draft strategy. As for the idea of putting a time frame on sending drafted guys down or trading them to another teams minors i think it hasn't been a big enough issue to really address it with a change. Just my opinion put each owner should have the ability to draft and do with what they see fit with there rosters and players. But I will also be okay with a rule change.
|
|
|
|
Post by CEOSouth on Feb 16, 2017 22:19:14 GMT -5
I can understand that. Agreed, I don't think it is a huge issue currently, however, identifying it and allowing it to continue to run that way really starts to beg the question "Why have a Minors Draft?", especially now that the flood gate is open from last year. I would only assume you are probably going to see a few more Minors picks in the Active Draft this year.
Don't get me wrong. I love the idea of a 2 round Minors Draft every year, which is obviously one of the reasons for the rule change to 'You can roster 15 Minors all year, you can only keep 13 at the end of the year". It carves out that 2 round draft every year.
The more I think about it, the more I like the idea of 1st Year MLB Draft players being only available in theMinors Draft the following year. It really would give substance to that 2 Round Draft every year and with the rule change splitting the lottery into 1-6, 7-10, allow for the worst teams to have the best odds at getting the best selections.
That's what we want right? As was mentioned earlier by some of you when talking about DRT having to cut good players, there should be elements built in the league that prevent you somewhat from being really terrible for years on end. There should be some balance. The good teams should win, and the bad teams should have the best opportunity to turn it around. The 1st pick of the Active Draft only does so much to help, considering we have 15 keepers apiece. With the right draft choices, the Minors Draft has the potential to really help a team turn it around in the future....more so than the Active Draft does IMO.
|
|
|
|
Post by CEOSouth on Feb 16, 2017 22:41:22 GMT -5
Speaking of balance
Between 2014-2015
DRT went from 8th to 1st
STRO went from 10th to 2nd
TL23 went from 9th to 10th
Between 2015-2016
SITH went from 9th to 3rd
TIG went from 8th to 1st
TL23 went from 10th to 10th
By that logic:
2017
Reds will finish 1st
BELL will finish 2nd
TL23 will finish 9th
Both offseasons we've had two teams that finished in the bottom 1/3 jump up the the top 1/3 in the league.
|
|
|
|
Post by brownies1 on Feb 16, 2017 23:04:16 GMT -5
I like the idea of first year players only being able to be drafted in the minors.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 17, 2017 0:41:27 GMT -5
Yeah, I think that solves the problem and restores the intent of the minors draft.
|
|
|
|
Post by BellevueBuckeye on Feb 17, 2017 7:58:04 GMT -5
I like that idea as well
|
|
|
|
Post by sithbucknut77 on Feb 17, 2017 9:12:33 GMT -5
I'm on the fence with this one. I see both sides and possibly being the 1st owner in our very 1st draft inch toward what TIG last season. In that 1st draft I picked Springer very late and I recall comments during the draft about it being an active draft not the minors draft. Now my intention all along was to sit on that roster spot until he got called up knowing full well that he might not get the call was a bust.
I feel like most comes down to risk tolerance as owners. Can they afford to sit on a dead spot and for how long. With the expansion of minors rosters to 15 we will probably have around 100 "true prospects". Just scan the various top 100 prospect lists out there and you can see a ton of those guys are owned. With that many prospects out of play already, how many minor players are really out there that even the most aggressive owners will want to make that move? I can't tell the future but I would think it would not become a regular occurrence.
I honestly think this type of action, done well, could be the fastest way to turn over a weak roster. Because what are the minor players? Trade chips...just like MLB. If I need a front line starter at the deadline how else to I get it from a team at the bottom of the standings? The problem with going hog wild and drafting a bunch of minors in the active draft is with more players selected prices you can get for said prospects should be depressed and what's the point for selling for pennies on the dollar.
There are already a few rules in place that help suppress a high number of guys getting selected. One is the single minors demotion. Do I really draft more than 1 top 20 prospect if I can't move him or utilize the player? The 2nd one is the minor cap at 15. Owners trading for said minor players possibly limit themselves by either not wanting to cut or trade back to stay at the 15.
I do find the thought of the previous seasons MLB drafted players being eligible for the active draft interesting. It is very similar to us not being allowed the pick up guy selected during the current season MLB draft. It keeps the integrity of our minors rosters so all owners have equal shot at getting those players.
I was more bummed that I didn't think of doing it 1st!
|
|
redsfan614
All Conference
In Votto We Trust
Posts: 392 
|
Post by redsfan614 on Feb 17, 2017 11:26:18 GMT -5
I've drafted a player who was a possible mlb starter during spring training only to find out that they were the last guy "cut" and started the year in the minors. I had every intention of using them from the get-go, but for some unforeseen reason (usually playing time) they began the year in AAA. Not my fault the team made that decision and in this league I could demote that player if I wanted. Risk vs reward for a late pick...
On the other hand I would hate to see an owner draft a bunch of minor league players/prospects knowing full well most of them aren't playing major league ball in April, tanking on the year, with the idea that they're filling their roster with young talent for future years...
I'm on the fence with this. It's nice that we have a 15 keeper limit that reduces such activity, we have a huge chunk of prospects already rostered, and with keeping current year draft picks off the board until the following season along with the potential (?) 15/13 rule on minor rosters we're pretty well set and trending in the right direction to maintain the league's credibility and competitiveness.
That we're having this discussion in such depth and trying to tweek (seriously...twerk is in google's dictionary but tweek isn't? wtf?) the draft/milb free agent process speaks of the integrity of the league and the players within.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 17, 2017 11:52:39 GMT -5
I've drafted a player who was a possible mlb starter during spring training only to find out that they were the last guy "cut" and started the year in the minors. I had every intention of using them from the get-go, but for some unforeseen reason (usually playing time) they began the year in AAA. Not my fault the team made that decision and in this league I could demote that player if I wanted. Risk vs reward for a late pick... On the other hand I would hate to see an owner draft a bunch of minor league players/prospects knowing full well most of them aren't playing major league ball in April, tanking on the year, with the idea that they're filling their roster with young talent for future years... I have no problem with what you described above in either scenario. If people want to stuff their active roster with players that might not even develop into anything and punt for a year and hope the league is around again the next year, that's their right to choose how to play. We also have the option to vote said person out of the league at the end if they really sandbag it. And yeah, drafting/keeping a player that isn't a guaranteed starter is a risk. You could have to burn your demotion, a bench spot, or drop that player. My concern is lets say that you draft Nick Senzel and I draft Mickey Moniak in this years active draft. Then after the draft you trade me Moniak and I put him on my minors roster and I trade you Senzel and you put him on your minors roster. We've basically used the active draft to undermine the minors draft. |
|
|
|
Post by DrTorch on Feb 17, 2017 12:39:21 GMT -5
hold the minors draft first
problem solved?
|
|
redsfan614
All Conference
In Votto We Trust
Posts: 392
|
Post by redsfan614 on Feb 17, 2017 12:41:54 GMT -5
hold the minors draft first problem solved? Not a bad idea... |
|
|
|
Post by CEOSouth on Feb 17, 2017 12:45:49 GMT -5
I think
When should MLB First Year Draft Players first be available?
1. Following Years Minors Draft
2. Following Years Active Draft
Is a good poll to put up and then we can put this to rest. Good input from both sides on the topic.
Get any last minute input in, and I'll put the poll up. Majority wins. 3 man vote team(if it comes to that) this year is TIG, DRT, CEO.
|
|
|
|
Post by CEOSouth on Feb 17, 2017 12:48:57 GMT -5
hold the minors draft first problem solved? We have unlimited promotions from Minors to majors.I think it'll probably just reverse our current situation. Making everything one draft was another possibility. However, like I referenced above, I think two drafts helps to compensate for poor performance from a team. Not only do lower teams get first crack at what is essentially pick 151 and above in the Active, they get first crack at the top drafted Minors players from the year before. |
|
|
|
Post by DrTorch on Feb 17, 2017 12:55:18 GMT -5
hold the minors draft first problem solved? We have unlimited promotions from Minors to majors.I think it'll probably just reverse our current situation. Making everything one draft was another possibility. However, like I referenced above, I think two drafts helps to compensate for poor performance from a team. Not only do lower teams get first crack at what is essentially pick 151 and above in the Active, they get first crack at the top drafted Minors players from the year before. yeah but if the issue is minors being drafted in the common draft solely to be traded then this would solve that issue seems like we are spending a lot of time trying to manage a problem that hasn't happened yet...i'd be of the mind to make it as simple as possible...if we draft minors first then no one can be upset if TIG or anyone else drafts a minor in the common draft soley to trade because everyone already had a chance to draft that player...and no one will be inclined to trade for a minor that they just passed up in order to draft someone else? |
|
|
|
Post by CEOSouth on Feb 17, 2017 12:55:26 GMT -5
I honestly think this type of action, done well, could be the fastest way to turn over a weak roster. I think I probably agree with that. Beyond that though, if you consider what owners would likely be in a position to make that move earlier in the Active draft, I think you are going to find that it is the good teams that are more equipped to utilize that strategy. Is Team A or Team B more likely to utilize that strategy earlier in the Active Draft? Team A Made Playoffs Forced to cut good players to get below 15 Less 'holes' to fill in Active Draft Team B Missed the playoffs Forced to keep 15, though some may not be top 150 players More 'holes' to fill in the draft I'm not sure, but I would think Team A is going to be more likely to utilize that strategy. Team B can't really afford to take those risks. |
|
|
|
Post by DrTorch on Feb 17, 2017 12:57:39 GMT -5
and we always have the option of voting teams who tank off the island at the end of the year
|
|
