Forum: pol
Page 3626
Subject: Prospect Keeper Options Voting

  Posted by: Boldwin - [12214143] Sat, Mar 31, 2012, 11:15
Bring out yer brilliant ideas, contentions, vent yer spleen.

Let's make up a list of options, possible changes to our farm system and draft.

This thread isn't an admission or encouragement that our system needs any changes, just an opportunity.

I have had a change of heart and once again like our prospect draft after the regular. I like that whoever picked Hultzen in the regular had to decide if there was a chance he could snag him later in the prospect or conversely that he could keep anyone else from having a crack at him in the prospect draft.

I'd like to hear Tree's ideas for a super-prospect slot one more time.

Should we have a prospect draft clock?

Should we require contact numbers from non-regulars on the poliboard who check forum and therefore draft thread infrequently?
 
1taxman
      ID: 21281010
      Sat, Mar 31, 2012, 16:43 		Baldwin...

Yes to keep prospect draft after regular draft

Yes to reasonable clock..maybe 6 hours

Yes to require contact numbers from non-regular poliboard managers.

 
2PuNk42AE
      Donor
      ID: 036635522
      Sat, Mar 31, 2012, 16:53 		Yes to keeping the two drafts how they are.

No to a clock on the prospect draft.

Indifferent on the contact numbers.


Either way though, I think there needs to finally be some kind of comprehensive list of rules and regulations for this league now.
 
3nerveclinic
      ID: 4711362616
      Sun, Apr 01, 2012, 00:01

Yes to keep prospect draft after regular draft

Yes to reasonable clock..maybe 6 hours

Yes to request contact numbers from non-regular poliboard managers.

 
4Great One
      ID: 512531316
      Sun, Apr 01, 2012, 12:35 		NO - Prospect draft before the regular draft would be a good compromise.

It would add an extra layer of intrigue and value to these prospect picks if you can draft a guy who comes in under thresholds and you know he won't make it through the regular draft. It would make the picks more valuable and would help those at the bottom of the league get more immediate impact players. It would also be nice to get it knocked out while we are getting organized for the regular draft. Keeps everyone more attentive and involved.

YES to reasonable clock..maybe 6 hours.
Indifferent on the contact numbers.

Either way though, I think there needs to finally be some kind of comprehensive list of rules and regulations for this league now.
 
5Biliruben
      ID: 358252515
      Sun, Apr 01, 2012, 14:42 		At least half my keepers, and ive traded away a bunch more. came up as prospects, so I am of the mind to say don't fix what ain't broke.
 
6Myboyjack
      ID: 36452617
      Sun, Apr 01, 2012, 22:42 		I'm not clear on what the proposed rule changes are (it seems at least one of the things people are voting on is to keep something the way it is? No need for a vote on that) SO:

Count me as a NO to any proposed rule change on prospect draft.
 
7Boldwin
      ID: 12214143
      Sun, Apr 01, 2012, 23:07 		I was calling for proposals and strong arguments for those proposals.

I didn't intend the header to be the ballot.
 
8Boldwin
      ID: 12214143
      Mon, Apr 02, 2012, 10:46 		Anyone with the willpower and the rigor to sort through all this leagues' previous threads for rules, and the energy to propose new rules to cover every possible situation that could come up which aren't already covered in our rules...

...can dare to take himself down this road.

But know that the attempt has already broken a better man than you. And such a document would look about as daunting as the AHCA.

Otherwise we'll just have to remain the League of Extraordinary Gentlemanly Agreement.
 
9Boldwin
      ID: 12214143
      Mon, Apr 02, 2012, 10:57 		Granted the aforementioned broken man's personal faultline and personality crisis seemed to resonate right at that very point in the universe. However he discovered that this league gives gridlock lessons to congress when we debate rule changes. This a league of contrarians. Whatever you think is a good change, someone else will rise up in high dudgeon over it.
 
10Perm Dude
      ID: 3210201915
      Mon, Apr 02, 2012, 11:53 		An early version of the rules are in post 432 here.

In 2009, I summarized the rules, to that point, in #62 of this thread.

Since that time the league voted to adjust the prospect rules to allow for unlimited callup/send downs of prospects, provided that they remain under the prospect limits. This rule change was for those prospects drafted after the rule was approved (i.e., older prospects were under the old rule spelled out in #62 of the second link above).
 
11Boldwin
      ID: 12214143
      Mon, Apr 02, 2012, 12:53 		Is there anyway to permanently prevent those from accidentally being swallowed up by the black hole at the back of the oldest threads list?
 
12Boldwin
      ID: 12214143
      Sat, Apr 14, 2012, 19:33 		Perhaps we can just use this thread for all voting, not just prospect keepers.

VOTE:

1) Add one bench slot next year.

2) Add one bench slot this year if possible.

3) Reduce the WW wait to one day.
 
13Boldwin
      ID: 12214143
      Sat, Apr 14, 2012, 19:33 		1) Y

2) Y

3) Y
 
14Biliruben
      ID: 358252515
      Sat, Apr 14, 2012, 19:51 		N n y
 
15Myboyjack
      ID: 36452617
      Sat, Apr 14, 2012, 20:28 		1. No
2. No
3. Yes.
 
16Tree
      ID: 17039238
      Sat, Apr 14, 2012, 20:58 		1) Add one bench slot next year.

2) Add one bench slot this year if possible.

3) Reduce the WW wait to one day.

1. YES.

2. It's not possible to change this in mid-season, so we should take it off the table.

3. No.
 
17PuNk42AE
      Donor
      ID: 036635522
      Sat, Apr 14, 2012, 22:23 		YNN
 
18PV in Santa Barbara
      ID: 1010151016
      Sun, Apr 15, 2012, 21:40 		No
No
Yes
 
19C1-NRB
      ID: 42281120
      Sun, Apr 15, 2012, 22:41 		1) Add one bench slot next year. Yes

2) Add one bench slot this year if possible. No

3) Reduce the WW wait to one day. Yes
 
20Great One
      ID: 512531316
      Sun, Apr 15, 2012, 23:29 		1) Add one bench slot next year. Yes

2) Add one bench slot this year if possible. No

3) Reduce the WW wait to one day. Yes
 
21PuNk42AE
      Donor
      ID: 036635522
      Tue, Apr 17, 2012, 18:21 		Did we ever decide what we're doing with Old/New prospects? Is there anyone against having them all under the new rules?
 
22nerveclinic
      ID: 4711362616
      Sat, Apr 21, 2012, 06:25

No

No

No



 
23Tree
      ID: 17039238
      Sat, May 12, 2012, 07:58 		i also think it's time to discuss games pitched as another measuring stick for a prospect.

simply put, there's something with our system when a guy has pitched nearly 100 games over three seasons, and is still a prospect by our rules. this is actually something i pointed out years ago that could happen.

maybe we need a 50 game cap or something similar?
 
24Boldwin
      ID: 3944693
      Sat, May 12, 2012, 08:24 		That's a feature, not a bug.
 
25Tree
      ID: 37414129
      Sat, May 12, 2012, 10:16 		no, a three-year veteran being considered a prospect is a bug.
 
26Boldwin
      ID: 3944693
      Sat, May 12, 2012, 15:21 		Works for me.

BTW you are really OK with only getting a ten game look at your prospect starter before having to throw him back?

Bullpen guys are naturally gonna take more time showing us their stuff. Accept it.

 
27Tree
      ID: 17039238
      Sat, May 12, 2012, 16:42 		who said anything about 10 games?
 
28Boldwin
      ID: 3944693
      Sat, May 12, 2012, 16:44 		My bad.
 
29Great One
      ID: 450312813
      Sat, May 12, 2012, 22:48 		Yeah, if you had a rookie/prospect closer you could be calling him and up and down prospect style for 2 full seasons... i.e. if someone had Axford 3 seasons ago? he only has 149 career IP right now. He's barely above that threshold. And that's just not the spirit of rule I don't think.
 
30Tree
      ID: 17039238
      Sun, May 13, 2012, 03:26 		exactly.
 
31Boldwin
      ID: 3944693
      Sun, May 13, 2012, 05:50 		I know I am one definate vote against that rule change.
 
32Great One
      ID: 450312813
      Sun, May 13, 2012, 08:58 		So lets look at the length of time for each threshold... a hitter 300 AB's is a bit more than half of a full season. For a SP, 125 IP is a bit more than half a season.
So for both of those you would get a Sept. callup plus til the following seasons ASB to use them as a prospect and evaluate them.

For a RP 125 IP would be 2+ full seasons of service plus a Sept callup etc.

If we are conservative about it and take that extra month or so each of these has room for, for easy comparison....

Hitter 300 AB's = 1/2 a season of service
SP 125 IP = 1/2 a season of service
RP 125 IP = 2 full seasons of service

Doesn't that seem out of whack?
 
33Boldwin
      ID: 3944693
      Sun, May 13, 2012, 09:43 		And it's still just a small sample size. The same number of IP. The starter has as much chance of blossoming into a usable starter as the bullpen guy has of turning into a usable closer.

In fact there is more chance the starter becomes usable than the bullpen help in that number of IP.

Kenley Jansen (hopefully), Storen and Soria being outliers, the exceptions to the rule and two of them having gone thru my farm system. Even then Soria didn't get the closer gig in time for me to keep him.

Picking prospect closers isn't easy but it does carry interesting characteristics.
 
34Great One
      ID: 450312813
      Sun, May 13, 2012, 11:34 		I'm all for having a rule that can be easily exploited... just thought I'd point it out so everyone is aware.
 
35Tree
      ID: 17039238
      Sun, May 13, 2012, 11:37
Kenley Jansen (hopefully), Storen and Soria being outliers, the exceptions to the rule and two of them having gone thru my farm system

how are they outliers if they're the majority example? how many relievers have come through the prospect system?

Picking prospect closers isn't easy but it does carry interesting characteristics.

picking prospects in general isn't easy.

but GO's chart tells the tale:
Hitter 300 AB's = 1/2 a season of service
SP 125 IP = 1/2 a season of service
RP 125 IP = 2 full seasons of service

that is very out of whack, and needs to be brought up to speed. obviously any picks would be grandfathered in with a chance in the rules...
 
36nerveclinic
      ID: 205418
      Fri, Jan 25, 2013, 11:26
I am changing my vote to yes add one extra slot to line ups for 2013. That gets us to 7 votes, I believe one more would put us over a majority, and there are many league members who haven't bothered to vote. Can we get one more yes from anyone who hasn't voted?

 
37taxman
      ID: 11291516
      Sat, Feb 16, 2013, 19:38 		doesn't appear I ever voted (easy to do when you don't follow this forum.

1) N0
2) no
3) yes

Probably should send an e-mail to all managers when a vote is proposed so that they might be aware of such.