| 0 |
Subject: Proposals for 2009 and beyond
Posted by: Tree
- [33246146] Fri, Mar 14, 2008, 09:30
making a couple proposals for next season...
the first, which i'm calling Prop 0, is not something i'm sure we can vote on. i think it's got to be a commish decree, and i think while we can discuss amongst us, i think it's important it passes for obvious reasons.
the second, involves prospects...
Prop 0 - Once a rule is proposed, there is a 10 day discussion period. Owners can vote at any time during this discussion, but all votes are due within 10 days.
A proposition passes if a majority of owners who voted within the 10 day time frame vote in favor of the change. in case of a tie, the commish votes to break the tie.
Prop 1 - an owner may tag one prospect a "super prospect". This designation can be made at any time, but if not done before the 7 day rule applied to prospects, then the normal rules apply, and the owner risks losing the prospect.
a "super prospect" is one an owner who would like to see a little more time developing, and his maximums are boosted to 750 ABs or 250 IPs.
an owner may have only one "super prospect" at a time. He counts as one of your five prospects, and one of your three prospect keepers, and once he has this designation, it cannot be removed, unless there is a definitive career ending injury or something similar. if he gets hurt, and misses a full season, that is part of the risk you take.
---------------------
Prop 0 is of utmost importance, and it actually comes off of something bili suggested last season, and something i brought up in this pre season.
i, for one, am sick and tired of seeing propositions for rule changes go up, only to have them end up being non-issues because not enough people vote, and they all die on the vine. just look at the wasted discussion threads from previous season involving rules changes. |
| 1 | nerveclinic
ID: 105222
Fri, Mar 14, 2008, 10:06
|
Prop 0 yes except it currently takes more then a majority for a new rule, or is a change to existing rule...isn't it 2/3rds? I can't keep up. In any case I like the spirit of the rule 10 days and use the votes made to rule.
I don't see why this needs to be a commish decision, it seems like any other rule we vote on.
Prop 1 Big No. Just one more confusing thing to keep up with concerning prospects, it's hard enough already we don't need another layer to track. If you proposed raising the limits AB's and IP on all prospects I might look at that.
|
| 2 | Tree
ID: 33246146
Fri, Mar 14, 2008, 10:17
|
I don't see why this needs to be a commish decision, it seems like any other rule we vote on.
because our problem is getting enough people to vote. :o)
|
| 3 | Perm Dude
ID: 30234146
Fri, Mar 14, 2008, 10:21
|
I think if the trouble is getting enough people to vote, we probably don't want to hold off the commish's vote as a potential tiebreaker (like some sort of superdelegate). I like the idea of a voting term, and the idea of counting those votes that come in during that term. But I'd want to strip out the tiebreaker part of the proposal to vote "yes" on it.
"No" on Prop 1, for the same reasons nerve lays out.
|
| 4 | Myboyjack
ID: 27210710
Fri, Mar 14, 2008, 10:23
|
because our problem is getting enough people to vote. :o)
Typical liberal - wanting to quash an supposedly ill-functioning democracy with a coup and impose a dictatorship for the good of the people. :)
|
| 5 | Pancho Villa
ID: 495272016
Fri, Mar 14, 2008, 10:23
|
I'm good with prop 0.
Adamantly opposed to Prop 1. There are already too many players locked out of the player pool with 7 keepers and 5 prospects. IMO.
Rather than expanding innings and at bats, I would suggest lowering them.
750 at bats and 250 innings pitched are equal to almost two full years in the bigs. Why would we want to keep players out of the player pool for such an extended period?
|
| 6 | Tree
ID: 33246146
Fri, Mar 14, 2008, 11:52
|
750 at bats and 250 innings pitched are equal to almost two full years in the bigs. Why would we want to keep players out of the player pool for such an extended period?
well, my logic there is that it would be a MAX of one player per team, so that's a max of 14 players out for that long.
it would allow more evaluation time for players like Upton, Salty, Butler, etc, players who eventually blossomed, or who just barely went over their threshold by a couple dozen at bats.
|
| 7 | biliruben
ID: 33258140
Fri, Mar 14, 2008, 12:01
|
Yes to Prop 0, but it's majority for a new rule, 2/3rds for a rule change.
No to Prop 1. If you think they'll blossom, suck it up and make them real a keeper. If they don't pan out, tough titties. This would be essentially removing the entire first round of a draft that is already pretty bereft of talent.
Except the guys I can't keep of course. ;)
You'll notice 4 of my old squad were drafted before I ever got a pick. Yet I think we keep too many as it is.
|
| 8 | Mattinglyinthehall
Leader
ID: 01629107
Fri, Mar 14, 2008, 12:06
|
Re prop 0 -
in case of a tie, the commish votes to break the tie.
So the commish gets two votes?
|
| 9 | Perm Dude
ID: 30234146
Fri, Mar 14, 2008, 12:10
|
Or the commish doesn't vote (which is my objection in #3).
|
| 10 | Boldwin
ID: 3013265
Fri, Mar 14, 2008, 13:22
|
Prop 0 - yes, with Bili's addendum. Nervous about this rule aborting discussion about improvements. It kinda bum rushes the first unedited proposal.
Prop 1 - Yes, but open to improvements. Still like my idea [of losing a prospect slot each year you extend] far better. Not clear that the designation has to be for the natural life of the player either.
|
| 11 | Mattinglyinthehall
Leader
ID: 01629107
Fri, Mar 14, 2008, 13:25
|
B
You know we're awaiting your vote on a proposal in another league, right?
|
| 12 | Boldwin
ID: 3013265
Fri, Mar 14, 2008, 13:35
|
The farm system has been such an unmitigated disaster here that I am thinking I might like one of my keeper leagues to not have a farm system. I kinda liked guessing where I needed to pick Justin Upton.
Call my delay an extended gut check.
|
| 13 | Seattle Zen
ID: 49112418
Fri, Mar 14, 2008, 13:41
|
I will vote Yes on Prop 0, however, I don't think this will be a problem in the future. Last year we had three new managers and one manager eating smoke all season with an axe in hand, far away from a computer. Our culture of voting on rules was new to them, now they know. I was happy to see how quickly we drafted this year, it says to me that every manager was attentive and eager. I suspect that will carry over to the regular season. Last year it was frustrating that managers were not voting, it felt like to me that we were all at a meeting in a conference room, most of us were talking and casting votes, the others were reading the newspaper and ignoring us. I now believe that they thought the the rest of us would figure it out. Everyone should know now that everyone needs to vote on each issue.
Resounding NO on Prop 1. It's a bad idea and vague on its face. once he has this designation, it cannot be removed, unless there is a definitive career ending injury or something similar.
Who would make that call?
250 IP is too much. Huston Street hasn't pitched that many yet. Jose Valverde has pitched 260.
I like the "flaws" you find in our prospect system even though your proposed Superprospect change would have benefited me in the past.
|
| 14 | PuNk42AE
Donor
ID: 036635522
Fri, Mar 14, 2008, 15:40
|
Vote No to Prob 1
|
| 15 | Mattinglyinthehall
Leader
ID: 01629107
Fri, Mar 14, 2008, 16:03
|
For releif pitchers the threshold should really be measured in games, not innings, wherever you think the bar should be set.
The way the system is set up a prospect who is an everyday hitter or a starting pitcher hits the threshold before his first year is up. But a relief pitcher with an established role, even a closer, won't hit it until his third year.
|
| 16 | biliruben
ID: 33258140
Fri, Mar 14, 2008, 16:07
|
Yeah, but I don't think we can avoid this, as pitchers can move from starter to relievers.
I don't think it's much of a serious problem in any case. I can only remember a handful of guys groomed to close in the minors that we've drafted over the years. Usually closers are failed starters.
|
| 17 | Mattinglyinthehall
Leader
ID: 01629107
Fri, Mar 14, 2008, 16:16
|
I don't think we can avoid this, as pitchers can move from starter to relievers
You just add a third threshold; make it 300ab or 125ip or 30g, whichever comes first, using the current bar. Tree's super prospect proposal should be something like 750ab or 250ip or 85g.
--------
Re these proposals, I'd like an answer from Tree on post 11. I'd also like to know what he means by, "and once he has this designation, it cannot be removed, unless there is a definitive career ending injury or something similar. if he gets hurt, and misses a full season, that is part of the risk you take." I assume the designation is removed once the prospect is promoted to the primary roster or dropped or traded away?
|
| 18 | PuNk42AE
Donor
ID: 036635522
Fri, Mar 14, 2008, 16:29
|
Yeah I was going to say the same thing MITH, just add it in like 30G or something.
|
| 19 | Mattinglyinthehall
Leader
ID: 01629107
Fri, Mar 14, 2008, 16:39
|
Maybe I should have made it 40g but you get the idea.
|
| 20 | Tree
ID: 511251614
Sat, Mar 15, 2008, 01:48
|
sorry guys. i've been working at a wrestling show and a long afternoon and night of filming with the new Aronofsky film, The Wrestler.
re #17 - i was basically trying to cover all bases, and prevent someone from being stuck with a player being a super prospect or whatever with a big injury.
in hindsight, it's an unnecessary inclusion.
|
| 21 | Tree
ID: 512132410
Mon, Mar 24, 2008, 12:20
|
butt
|
| 22 | Tree
ID: 33231417
Mon, Apr 14, 2008, 23:03
|
ditto..
|
| 23 | Taxman
ID: 22192520
Tue, Apr 15, 2008, 00:01
|
prop #1 YES
Prop #2 NO
|
| 24 | Tree
ID: 23336154
Tue, Apr 15, 2008, 06:43
|
Tax - of, course, to make things more confusing, i actually numbered the Props 0 and 1. :o)
is your #1 actually my number 0, and so on?
|
| 25 | Taxman
ID: 22192520
Fri, May 16, 2008, 17:08
|
Tree: you have posted a correct re-statement of my vote.
...but why shouldn't I keep you in suspense for a month?
|
If you believe a recent post violates the policy on Civility and Respect,
you may report the abuse via email to moderators@rotoguru1.com | |
|
|
Post a reply to this message: (But first, how about checking out this sponsor?)
|
|