|
Post by christiankmikk on Nov 15, 2011 17:33:29 GMT -5
Okay, that was a bad idea. Now we got that out of the way. But the only thing that I believe we should do is have a 10 round MiLB draft this year then 5 for future years. That would make me happy. It just makes more sense.
|
|
|
Post by Commissioner (Athletics GM) on Nov 15, 2011 17:34:44 GMT -5
And why does it make more sense?
|
|
|
Post by christiankmikk on Nov 15, 2011 17:44:10 GMT -5
Because there will be great prospects that we are not allowed to own.
|
|
|
Post by Commissioner (Athletics GM) on Nov 15, 2011 17:44:45 GMT -5
It doesn't mean you can't add them mid season.
|
|
|
Post by rocky on Nov 15, 2011 17:48:38 GMT -5
But according to free agency rules the max we could own them for is 2 years they will not be eligible for a 1/6 year contract
|
|
|
Post by Commissioner (Athletics GM) on Nov 15, 2011 17:57:46 GMT -5
Basically what you would be doing by expanding the prospect draft is voiding much of the talent that gets acquired via free agency.
Look at this way. 10 rounds is 160 players. Prospect lists are generally around 100, so you can assume the top 100 are gone. Then you have the players who have played a major league game so they aren't considered prospects. Guys like Mesorasco, Montero and Trout can't be drafted, although they are still prospects. Then you have the glove only guys which takes out another huge chunk of prospects.
You're killing the minor league system and all future minor league free agents acquisitions with one draft.
|
|
|
Post by christiankmikk on Nov 15, 2011 18:20:53 GMT -5
Wait a second, so if you've played 1 major league game, then you're not a prospect? I think real rules should apply, so once a player reaches 100 ABs (I beleieve that is the number, I could be wrong) and 50 IP (again, I believe this is the number but I could be wrong), then the player is no longer a prospect.
|
|
|
Post by christiankmikk on Nov 15, 2011 18:21:42 GMT -5
MiLB draft should be opposite order of the MLB draft but seriously, thats more fair
|
|
|
Post by Commissioner (Athletics GM) on Nov 15, 2011 18:24:11 GMT -5
Wait a second, so if you've played 1 major league game, then you're not a prospect? I think real rules should apply, so once a player reaches 100 ABs (I beleieve that is the number, I could be wrong) and 50 IP (again, I believe this is the number but I could be wrong), then the player is no longer a prospect. Far more complicated than that with service time issues. The rules for prospect limits will not be changing.
|
|
|
Post by Commissioner (Athletics GM) on Nov 15, 2011 18:24:59 GMT -5
MiLB draft should be opposite order of the MLB draft but seriously, thats more fair Another thing that's not likely happen, especially since I would getting Harper. Would look real good on me to switch the rules after figuring out that info...
|
|
|
Post by rocky on Nov 15, 2011 18:59:02 GMT -5
Connor I really think you should reconsider the criteria for a prospect, the 150AB/50IP is standard for all prospect scouting networks. And it makes players like Trout/ Kipnis/ Moore keep their prospect status.
Could I just get an explaination fro the 250ab/100ip criteria ?
|
|
|
Post by Commissioner (Athletics GM) on Nov 15, 2011 19:01:54 GMT -5
Basically a fair sample size to see whether or not they want to own their prospects after the AB's limit. 250 AB's/ 100 IP basically gives managers a fair enough sample size to make decisions on whether or not they are worth the roster spot.
It's just a lot simpler to make anyone who has not played a game available in the draft and that's the reason I don't use the standard limits. You also have to remember different sites consider prospect limits differently, as evident with the service time issues instead of just usage.
|
|
|
Post by hylianhero on Nov 17, 2011 16:53:21 GMT -5
Is the minor league draft snaking as well?
|
|
|
Post by Commissioner (Athletics GM) on Nov 17, 2011 16:55:09 GMT -5
For the first season, yes as the order is random. Subsequent seasons will be fixed.
|
|
|
Post by rocky on Nov 17, 2011 16:55:16 GMT -5
I'd imagine so.
|
|