|
Post by sjrand on Jan 10, 2007 12:47:31 GMT -5
These are the variations:
6 hitters, 5 pitchers, 10 rookies auto protected. Up to 21 total 7 hitters, 6 pitchers, 5 rookies auto protected. Up to 18 total 8 hitters, 7 pitchers, No rookies auto protected. Up to 15 total
Auto protected means you don't need to use one of your protection flags on the player, all rookies not yet at peak, up to the maximum listed, will be automatically protected from the draft.
Obviously, I stacked the deck so that the more players you get to chose to protect, the fewer pre-peak rookies will get automatic protection. For many teams fewer players overall will be protected if the vote favors anything higher than 6 hitters and 5 pitchers.
The 6 hitters, 5 pitchers, 10 rookies auto protected favors teams that have a lot of pre-peak rookies they don't want to lose. Large roster teams will find this suits them best.
The 7 hitters, 6 pitchers, 5 rookies auto protected favors teams that have more good veterans, but also have developing rookies they want to keep. Average roster size teams (around 35) will favor this one.
The 8 hitters, 7 pitchers, NO rookies auto protected favors teams strong in veteran talent and weak on prospects. Small roster teams will find this suits them best.
When all the votes are in, if there's no clear majority winner I'll remove the least popular option and re-poll.
|
|
|
Post by reds on Jan 10, 2007 17:44:41 GMT -5
I voted for Option B, here's why. I think it would be unfair for the expansion teams to be able to choose only veteran players. Also, allowing us to protect only 5 rookies will hopefully people from keeping all of their young guys in the minors over the next couple of years, just to protect them from the expansion draft. If somebody has more than 5 good prospects you can still choose to protect them, but it should be at the expense of your major league players. Just my thoughts.
|
|
|
Post by Yankees on Jan 11, 2007 13:03:04 GMT -5
I would of liked to voted for none of the above
|
|
|
Post by staryfurysk on Jan 11, 2007 13:21:36 GMT -5
i'd also vote none of the above if it were an option.
|
|
|
Post by Scott on Jan 11, 2007 14:06:32 GMT -5
I would vote 6, 6, 10
|
|
|
Post by sjrand on Jan 11, 2007 15:26:11 GMT -5
I would of liked to voted for none of the above and i'd also vote none of the above if it were an option. That option would be here
|
|
|
Post by staryfurysk on Jan 11, 2007 16:26:58 GMT -5
i agree to some extent with the expansion but i dont agree with any of the choices. therefore it does not belong there.
|
|
|
Post by American Royal on Jan 11, 2007 23:39:28 GMT -5
It looks like between these 3 choices we can protect either 15, 18 or 21 players
I would like to see an option were we can protect X amount of players and not a specific kind of player like a hitter or a pitcher or a vet or a rook.
|
|
|
Post by American Royal on Jan 12, 2007 0:03:40 GMT -5
If we are worried about not having enough players for the expansion teams lets
The first year the expansion teams are going to be included in the Rookie Draft lets do this
Add a 4th round
Add a 3rd rookie team
Give the 4 expansion teams the first 4 and last 4 picks of each round
That would give them 8 players right there plus if there is enough talent let them keep drafting a 5th round or so.
|
|
|
Post by staryfurysk on Jan 12, 2007 1:36:00 GMT -5
if we want them to be successful i see no reason to give them each 2 first round picks.
6 Hitters 6 Pitchers 8 Rookies is my prefered pattern, but i dont really like the whole setup.
|
|
|
Post by Mosko on Jan 12, 2007 8:22:45 GMT -5
I would like to see an option were we can protect X amount of players and not a specific kind of player like a hitter or a pitcher or a vet or a rook. This is what I would prefer as well. I would not want to waste protected spots just because I didn't happen to have many rookies. Nor would I want to use a spot for a mediocre hitter and lose a good pitcher, or vice versa.
|
|
|
Post by johnnyboy on Jan 12, 2007 10:19:48 GMT -5
Yesterday at 11:39pm, The Athlete wrote:I would like to see an option were we can protect X amount of players and not a specific kind of player like a hitter or a pitcher or a vet or a rook.
I agree.
In that way we will be able to protect the players we really care. The rebuilding owner will protect more their rookies,most of his vets will be available and for the containding owners they will protect their vets and most of his rookies will be available. That way no one will be discriminated
|
|
|
Post by zlebk72 on Jan 12, 2007 10:47:38 GMT -5
Yesterday at 11:39pm, The Athlete wrote:I would like to see an option were we can protect X amount of players and not a specific kind of player like a hitter or a pitcher or a vet or a rook. I agree. In that way we will be able to protect the players we really care. The rebuilding owner will protect more their rookies,most of his vets will be available and for the containding owners they will protect their vets and most of his rookies will be available. That way no one will be discriminated I hate the thought of losing such a large percentage of my roster to expansion. I like the "X" idea JB. I just hope X becomes...more than it is currently slated to be. BTW, I still voted "yes" for expansion. The desire for a historically accurate league outweighs my selfish impulses.
|
|
|
Post by Exposgm on Jan 12, 2007 11:13:58 GMT -5
I don't agree with this. It's quite simple: it is obvious that if we allow this, teams will favor pitchers over hitters. It doesn't take a degree in anything to realize that hitters are in general extremely easy to replace. Thus, the expansion teams would really have a very, very thin pool of pitchers to draft from other teams, leading to an extremely unbalanced expansion draft.
Rand's original proposition was made in order to keep a certain balance league-wide. We do not want expansion teams to be so bad or to have even worst pitchers as the first expansion did a few years ago.
Deciding between 6 hitters/5 pitchers or 6/6 or 5/6 is irrelevant, somehow. People have to realize they are going to lose players; we all are going to. It sounds like everyone making suggestions does so according to his personal plans or the roster he expects his team to have when the expansion draft starts. That's not the way to go.
I don't see how we can't do that by protecting 6 hitters, 5 pitchers and 10 rookies auto protected.
Also, protecting the players we are supposed to really care about, it's like only giving junk away. In fact, saying this really is saying "we will be able to lose only the players we don't care about".
That would be the exact same thing as the previous expansion draft. In most cases, teams lost players they were happy to lose, since they didn't have to pay to release them and they even got something in return sometimes.
I have a suggestion, maybe, that could satisfy some teams if we adopt the 6 hitters, 5 pitchers and 10 rookies:
Any team wishing to protect more hitters or pitchers could "sacrifice" 2 rookie protections in order to "acquire" a hitter or pitcher protection. It's like a switch, something one team would pay for. Many teams could benefit from this, especially the ones who wouldn't have as many as 10 rookies to protect. Some could also decide they'd rather lose 2 rookie protections in order to protect one more pitcher or hitter. If that was done in a way similar to this one (2 rookie protections for 1 regular protection), I think many teams could be able to cover up pretty much everyone they wish to protect.
|
|
|
Post by staryfurysk on Jan 12, 2007 11:24:47 GMT -5
this is where i get frusterated. I just got done drafting talent at pitching, and now i'm destined to lose at least one of them. Why should i lose one after working hard to acquire the guys like Dahl outside the draft and waiting on Giusti for so long?
I would like to see the # of pitchers grow to 6 so i still lose some but it doesnt really hurt my chances of coming around.
As it stands now, i'm going to have to bench a rookie so that i dont get killed by this expansion draft.
|
|
|
Post by American Royal on Jan 12, 2007 11:30:47 GMT -5
I was just thinking every team is being run different IE alot of Rooks or Vets and either good hitting or good pitching. That way each team will be able to decide what they keep and what they lose.
We did this in the first expansion draft and in retrospect I think it worked out fine with the expansion teams
Personally I would rather give up DP's than my own team that I have built for the new teams. Heck I would give up an entire draft to the 4 teams rather than lose what I have built.
|
|
|
Post by sjrand on Jan 12, 2007 18:18:36 GMT -5
I don't agree with this. It's quite simple: it is obvious that if we allow this, teams will favor pitchers over hitters. Bingo! Give that man a sea-gar. I knew there was a reason I talked you into filling the assistant commissioner spot Also, protecting the players we are supposed to really care about, it's like only giving junk away. In fact, saying this really is saying "we will be able to lose only the players we don't care about". That would be the exact same thing as the previous expansion draft. In most cases, teams lost players they were happy to lose, since they didn't have to pay to release them and they even got something in return sometimes. Once again, my reasoning exactly. Any team wishing to protect more hitters or pitchers could "sacrifice" 2 rookie protections in order to "acquire" a hitter or pitcher protection. And it's a hat trick for the Indians. this is where i get frusterated. I just got done drafting talent at pitching, and now i'm destined to lose at least one of them. Why should i lose one after working hard to acquire the guys I would like to see the # of pitchers grow to 6 so i still lose some but it doesnt really hurt my chances of coming around. Everybody is going to lose good players. That's going to make the players we don't think of as good right now look a whole lot better as the average level of team talent goes down. If it works out the way I expect, we'll want to use B- rated contact hitters in the starting lineup, and put 3.60 predicted pitchers into the rotation, and they'll do well because every other team lost some of it's potency too.
|
|
|
Post by zlebk72 on Jan 15, 2007 12:37:20 GMT -5
With all due respect, the Senators refrain from voting on this poll.
|
|
|
Post by sjrand on Jan 15, 2007 14:16:41 GMT -5
With all due respect, the Senators refrain from voting on this poll. Respect is irrelevant, all your protest accomplishes is putting roster control for your team into the hands of the other owners who already voted for their own team interests, which is what this has been about form the beginning. In the 1962 expansion we had owners telling us how many players pro baseball really allowed the teams to protect. In this one, with only a few exceptions, all we have is owners telling us how many players their particular team needs to protect. Since this is too bitter for so many owners: Forget the polls. If enough people have changed their minds that I see a total of seven emails, PMs, or message board posts from seven different owners saying no expansion, then we call it off. Forget history. We're not historical and never have been. We're simply a league that uses real player names, wherever they happen to end up playing. So if expanding goes too much against your team interest, then call it off. As commissioner, I don't much care either way. As Mets owner, with at least as much to lose as anyone else here, I'm fine with keeping the league at 20 teams. Post, PM, or email me and say no expansion. I'm sure not going to hold it against you, and I doubt anyone else really will either. If we don't expand, we'll let owners that want to change their team name or location pick one from the teams that were around in 1969, first come first served. The Expos would already be taken.
|
|
|
Post by Cubbies on Jan 15, 2007 21:36:15 GMT -5
Forget history, why? Sure we don't have players playing on there proper team but we do use the same players from the same era. Call it what ever you want but I would call it some what historical, which is something I think is good about this game.
|
|