|
Post by Doubledays on Feb 24, 2018 11:27:58 GMT -5
I sent an email out about this but no one replied. I am not sure if that's because no one agrees with my idea or it just got missed due to the draft going on so I will start a thread and see if it gets any more traction here.
I would like to propose an rule change to the length of time we are allowed to keep prospects in the minors. With the contraction, there are a larger group of good major league players available but I hate the idea of being forced to roster a guy who's up and coming and still not really at his quality major league level instead of rostering another major league guy.
I'd like to find a way that we can hold major league "rookies" in our minors. As far as the time limit increase, that is what we can discuss.
Does anyone else like this idea? Not like this idea?
|
|
|
Post by Doubledays on Feb 25, 2018 15:05:07 GMT -5
No one has an opinion on this? I guess I'm the only one who hates promoting my guys early in their careers.
|
|
|
Post by HGH-PowerHouse on Feb 25, 2018 17:19:32 GMT -5
Maybe we should add a thread and name it "NQRFPT". It could be like the LTIR and you could put two players in there for a minimum of 1 year but he could not be rostered on your major league team at all that year but the following year you either promote or release.
Oh yeah that stands for: not quite ready for prime time.
|
|
|
Post by Fenway Faithful on Feb 26, 2018 12:30:35 GMT -5
I'd be open to discussing upping the limits that require us to call up / cut a player off the farm team. The rule was written to comply with MLB standards of a rookie (50 IP / 130 AB). But we don't have to stick with that if there are enough owners wanting to discuss it.
|
|
|
Post by Doubledays on Feb 27, 2018 17:43:01 GMT -5
It just seems with less teams now that the choices to roster better players from four contracted teams reduces the need to roster middling prospects early on in their careers.
The minors rules was designed with more teams. Now that we have fewer teams, I think it makes sense to raise the minors limits.
|
|
|
Post by hungoverheroes on Feb 28, 2018 7:33:49 GMT -5
I like how it is set for now, but I am open to discussing it as well.
Why I like it, it forces managers to make decisions on their major league roster, which creates player movement. Players put back into the free agency pool, which other teams might be able to use.
The other reason why I like it because I mimics the real baseball numbers. It would be difficult to track the numbers of games played or pitched. I use baseball reference to see if they are farm eligible.
just my two cents, all suggestions welcomed.
What are your suggested numbers?
|
|
|
Post by Doubledays on Feb 28, 2018 14:50:45 GMT -5
I like how it is set for now, but I am open to discussing it as well. Why I like it, it forces managers to make decisions on their major league roster, which creates player movement. Players put back into the free agency pool, which other teams might be able to use. The other reason why I like it because I mimics the real baseball numbers. It would be difficult to track the numbers of games played or pitched. I use baseball reference to see if they are farm eligible. just my two cents, all suggestions welcomed. What are your suggested numbers? I really dont have a suggested number off the top of my head, I just know it makes this draft less exciting if I am forced to drop guys who aren't as good as my main roster guys because they dont fit in the minors anymore due to GP. I get your point about being similar to the bigs, but our league is nowhere as large (# of teams) as the Major Leagues are, so there are LOTS of options already on the WW who are just as good as guys I am now forced to promote. Following the Majors policy is not really practical seeing as we are half the size (# of teams) as the Majors. If we are half the size of the Majors, why not double our minors eligibility numbers?
|
|
|
Post by Fenway Faithful on Feb 28, 2018 16:54:09 GMT -5
The numbers that came to mind immediately was almost double the current standards.
250 AB 100 IP
Nice round numbers. It does mean we would have to come up with a means of validating a players eligibility, which might be a manual process.
|
|
|
Post by HGH-PowerHouse on Feb 28, 2018 17:11:58 GMT -5
Keep in mind I know this guy who would love to help out in any capacity. If you would like me to ask him to keep an eye on the minor league rosters and it could be his job every spring to go through them and figure out who's hit these new limits I'm sure he'd like to. He's the guy that runs the HGH Powerhouse team. He's a good guy from what I've heard
We hope your surgery went well.....as it seems like the meds are treating you well:)
|
|
|
Post by hungoverheroes on Mar 1, 2018 18:58:06 GMT -5
I can see your point, you have drafted a player you would like to keep on your team, he has played pass his farm eligibility so you have to promote him. So with the new rules you can keep him on your roster for another year. Most likely he would pass the new target numbers the following year. The 100 IP and 250 AB would be cumulative from his two years MLB experience.
Are we doing this for next year or this year? I have gone through the farm teams and highlighted the players that need to be promoted for this year. To redo it with new numbers is a wee bit of a challenge.
|
|
|
Post by Doubledays on Mar 1, 2018 20:44:37 GMT -5
Since most have already made their choices/promotions before our prospect draft, I personally see no reason to do it at this point. Might as well start it next off-season.
|
|
|
Post by Fenway Faithful on Mar 1, 2018 23:40:01 GMT -5
Since most have already made their choices/promotions before our prospect draft, I personally see no reason to do it at this point. Might as well start it next off-season. Agreed!
|
|
|
Post by hungoverheroes on Mar 2, 2018 7:46:17 GMT -5
All right sounds like a plan. We will update our rules to reflect this. And let the rest of the league know about it. Randy....I hear by proclaim you official rule updater. If you could type up the new rules in a clear fashion I will gladly copy and paste them into the proboards rule section. You have a good command of the English language (something I dont
|
|
|
Post by Fenway Faithful on Mar 2, 2018 10:28:16 GMT -5
Here is what I wrote up for my other league, tweaked for our league here. Some of this may need to be tweaked based on our rules here, like the eligibility to be drafted (not sure where we landed on that) and the wording around roster space.
Each season we will conduct a 3 round prospect draft. Only players who are considered prospects are eligible. A prospect is a positional player with 250 MLB ABs or less or a pitcher with less than 100 MLB IP. Only players that are associated with an MLB team are eligible to be drafted. Players in foreign leagues, independent leagues, college, high school, middle school, little league or any other league that is not associated to the MLB are NOT eligible for our draft.
The order of the draft will be the reverse order of the prior season standings. In the event of a tie record, the following tiebreakers will be used:
1. Head to Head record 2. Divisional Record 2. Points scored
Draft picks may be traded at any time, including during the draft.
Teams must have room on their Farm Team roster for drafted players. A team will only be allowed to draft as many players as the team has Farm Team roster spots. Draft picks that will put a team over the roster limit, will be forfeited before the team is allowed to draft a player. That team will be skipped.
A team has 12 hours to make their draft selection. If a team misses their pick, they may make the pick up at any time. If a team misses 2 draft selections in a row, they will be blocked from drafting until speaking with the league commissioners.
|
|
|
Post by Doubledays on Mar 2, 2018 19:06:47 GMT -5
Awesome. Glad we are able to adjust to the benefit of all and our minors.
Many thanks.
|
|
|
Post by The Beanbaggers on Mar 3, 2018 14:47:52 GMT -5
I'm ok with the consensus, but I'd prefer to keep it the same rookie definition as MLB for multiple reasons. But I certainty understand the drive for a change. Especially when it comes to pitchers. It's not typically until year 2 or 3 before they become consistant enough to keep on a MLB roster.
So another approach to tackle that issue would be to expand the number of roster slots we have on our MLB squad. Our benches currently are pretty shallow and when we had more teams I liked that because it left players available if one of two starters went down with an injury. But with less overall teams that ensures choices if and when injuries occur.
So maybe if we added 2 more slots to our MLB team, it would allow us the opportunity to hold onto young players who are quite ready for full time without hurting our chances to compete now.
Just a thought.
|
|
|
Post by Lil Chubs on Mar 3, 2018 17:30:52 GMT -5
My initial thought would be to open up more slots on the active roster. That way we can move some guys up as well. Also, with the way teams are using the 10 day DL, teams are using more pitchers on thier rosters. For example, only 1 Dodgers player had enough innings (160) to compete for the ERA title.
I know I would move up a few guys to give them a chance on my “Major League Club”
-Billy
|
|
|
Post by hungoverheroes on Mar 4, 2018 16:57:38 GMT -5
My thoughts about adding extra bench spots is I dont like the idea of having players "stashed" on the bench. With the way it is now managers have to make decisions. When the free agent wire is full of options, its nice to have a selection, and the player who is dropped becomes someone else treasure.
As well, with a short bench it promotes trading. If i need a 3B I have to make a trade offer from someone else. With a big bench, I can have a back up at each position. It almost take the thinking out of the game. Need a SS? Just grab the second SS you have on the bench.
When deciding to drop someone to make room for someone else, it keeps the wavier wire active.
|
|