SLFBLers—The last
time I proposed this was exactly 5 years ago. Things have not improved and
instead have gotten worse. The 2016 DV draft pool is the worst in memory. One
of the main reasons for this is that teams are picking up amateur players much earlier
than ever before. I have built my team with players that were drafted or picked
up long before they ever signed with a major league team. Guys that I picked up
or traded for before they were ever drafted or signed by a major league team
include: Jose Abreu, Carlos Correa, Kris Bryant, Manny Machado, David Price,
and Yasiel Puig to name just a few. There is no question that I have been
successful in scouting DV talent, even high schoolers, and that it greatly
benefits my team; however, while my scouting efforts pay off for my team year
after year, it is hurting the league in two ways:
1. It is preventing teams that are struggling from improving their team through the DV draft.
2. Because the DV draft is barren and there are very few blue chip prospects available, some teams are having a very difficult time improving overall and it is hurting the competitive balance of the league.
For the sake of the future of the league and for improving the DV draft in general, we need to correct this. This is not an indictment of any team or owner. It is perfectly legal to draft or pick these players up since our rules do not prevent it; I have taken full advantage of this and will continue to do so should the proposal fail.
So, here is my official proposal:
Beginning with the 2017 season, players that have been signed by a major league organization by the time the SLFBL draft commences for that year are eligible for that year’s draft. Any player not signed by the time the SLFBL draft commences is ineligible.
1. It is preventing teams that are struggling from improving their team through the DV draft.
2. Because the DV draft is barren and there are very few blue chip prospects available, some teams are having a very difficult time improving overall and it is hurting the competitive balance of the league.
For the sake of the future of the league and for improving the DV draft in general, we need to correct this. This is not an indictment of any team or owner. It is perfectly legal to draft or pick these players up since our rules do not prevent it; I have taken full advantage of this and will continue to do so should the proposal fail.
So, here is my official proposal:
Beginning with the 2017 season, players that have been signed by a major league organization by the time the SLFBL draft commences for that year are eligible for that year’s draft. Any player not signed by the time the SLFBL draft commences is ineligible.
Example 1: Amateur
players that are subject to the MLB amateur draft cannot be drafted or picked
up the year they are drafted and will be eligible for the SLFBL draft or free
agent pick up the following year if drafted and signed or signed as free agent.
E.g., High school shortstop Brendan Rodgers was chosen by the Colorado Rockies
in the first round of the June 2015 MLB amateur draft and signed a contract. The
Farmers drafted him in the SLFBL DV draft in March 2015. If this rule had been
in place, he would not have been eligible for SLFBL pick-up or draft until
2016.
Example 2: International
players who are unsigned by a MLB organization by the time the SLFBL draft
commences cannot be drafted or picked up that year. E.g., Jose Abreu signed
with the Chicago White Sox in October 2013; he was picked up by the Pugz in
August 2013. If the rule had been in place, Abreu would not have been eligible
for pick up in 2013 and would have been available and eligible for the 2014
SLFBL draft.
PLEASE COMMENT BELOW ON THIS PROPOSAL BEFORE WE VOTE ON IT. IT WOULD BE GOOD TO HAVE A DISCUSSION ON ANY OR ALL CONCERNS AND OBJECTIONS.
11 comments:
TESTING, TESTING...
I recommend continuing as is and not change the rule as proposed above. Everyone in the league has access to the same information, and I believe that if an owner picks up a blue-chip prospect due to their time and effort researching, they should be rewarded for their effort.
Sean
I am inclined to consider the proposal. The DV draft, in my mind, was intended to offer an opportunity to accumulate young players that might be able to contribute in the near future. However, what seems to be occurring is that a greater number of unsigned high school players and un-signable foreign players are being drafted. I do not have any great heartburn over this but there are several issues I see as problematic: 1) the most notable to me is that baseball already requires an extensive time, while i applaud all those that have the wherewithal to search for these young nuggets many of us do not, 2) but it seems to me as if we keep diving deeper into the young talent pool without reasonable possibility that they will ultimately be able to serve the team that drafts them. If you are taking a look at 15 and 16 year olds, there is very little chance that a) they make it to the bigs and b) they do it in the 3 years you have control. It is kind of silly.
Anyhow, that is why i would consider a change. Other options to consider would be a smaller DV list or, perhaps, only two years of control. That would keep the talent pool richer.
Just the ramblings of someone who is really ignoring what he should be doing at this time of day.
I would like to correct some inaccuracies from the proposal. Things have not "gotten worse" regarding DV talent in the past five years, nor is it hurting the league. Frankly, the proposal would hurt the league, as it would restrict the owners from acting in ways that they think (and in my case, often incorrectly) will position their team to compete and ideally succeed in the future. Case in point, I picked up Angel Villalona years ago, after reading about his "light tower power." What has he done since? He has spent more time in jail than in a major league dugout, but that was a mistake that I was allowed to make, and it unknowingly helped the other teams, since he occupied a spot on my roster for a while. For every Bryce Harper, there are ten Angel Villalonas, and this big brother mentality of telling me when I can and can't acquire someone is unjust and wrong. Don't most of us often say that we want less governmental involvement in our lives and businesses? How is this different (I realize that may be a bit dramatic)? My philosophy is different from other owners' way of doing things, and my one championship in 21 years does not exactly represent a blueprint of how to succeed in this league, but it's how I choose to run my team, and I should be allowed to continue to do so. Who am I to say that a team that is perceived to be struggling is being prevented from improving said team through the draft. Frankly, that's a slap in the face to those teams (whomever they may be), as it is telling those owners that they are incapable of improving their team, even with high draft choices. And don't for a minute think that there is not premium talent available via the DV draft annually.
If you don't believe that statement, let me give you some data:
In 2014, there were 33 players chosen in the DV draft, which allowed for a crisp, efficient draft prior to the more elongated, but always interesting, MLB draft. Of those 33 players, 19 have great significance today (in my humble opinion). Nine of the 19 are represented prominently in the various legitimate top 100 lists, to include JP Crawford (#5 or 6 prospect in all the minors), Joey Gallo (#9), Trea Turner and Tyler Glasnow (#s 13 and 14), and several others in the 25-75 range of the top 100. Add to that, a future all-star at 2B (Rougned Odor), aces in Tanaka and Ventura, future superstar in Mookie Betts, a future top-notch catcher (Swihart), a stud outfielder in Steven Piscotty and a .304 hitter as a rookie in Devon Travis. CJ Cron and Bethancourt were not bad "gets," either. [CHOPP RESPONSE PART 1]
Not satisfied? Let's look at 2015:
I believe there were 36 DV-eligible picks, 16 of whom are presently in the top 100, almost all of whom are in the top 60. Those names, and you may have heard of them, include Moncada (#4 or 5 prospect in all the minors), Urias (#7), Matz (#11, drafted in the 4th round), Arcia (conservatively #15, drafted in the 6th round!), Mazara (#13), Bradley Zimmer (#24), Brendan Rodgers (#30), Mateo (#39), and on and on. I understand that 16 of 36 is not a majority, but let's consider two things: 1: this was less than one year ago that they were taken in our draft, and they are all already in the top 100; 2: this does not count the players who are ineligible to be drafted in the DV draft because their blue-chip talent was so great that they have already made significant contributions to MLB teams. Some examples include: Luis Severino (5 round DV pick, major cog in a rotation), Lance McCullers (5th round pick, another major member of an MLB playoff rotation), Jung-Ho Kang (10th round of the MLB draft, however DV-eligible last year!), who was another starter on a playoff team. Also drafted late was Roberto Osuna, who had 20 saves as a rookie; if the DV draft is so lacking in talent, he would have been lucky to make it to high-A by being drafted less than one year ago. Other players made it to the MLB who were taken in the 2015 MLB draft, so it is incredibly inaccurate to state that the talent has gotten worse in the DV draft in the past 5 years.
To say that it is hurting the competitive balance of the league is completely false. Over the same five-year period that is outlined in the proposal, how many different Smokey Louis champions have there been? I'll save you from having to look it up... 5. Exactly half the league owners have hoisted the trophy during that period. If you go back 8 years, we have had seven DIFFERENT champions. Competitive balance? Yeah, we have that in spades. I finished 7th in 2014, then was fortunate enough to win the next year, and Andy finished in the second-division before winning the next year in 2012.
No, it does not take a village to raise the Smokey Louis trophy, it takes a willingness to take risks, make mistakes AND make sound decisions on draft night.
With the dawn of smartphones, wifi in coffee shops and everywhere else, we all have the wherewithal to acquire talent (and make the aforementioned mistakes) during the season whenever we want; whether it's picking up kids from a swimming practice, freezing your a*s off in a youth hockey rink, stuck in traffic or waiting to be seen by your doctor, we ALL have the ability to look at a few favorites on our phone and see what's happening in this game that we love. I think I would speak for all owners in that there aren't too many more things more gratifying than building a strong team through creative and at times wacky ideas, and this proposal would contribute to that no longer being the case. If you like the length of the draft now, be prepared for it to be possibly significantly longer.
[CHOPP RESPONSE PART 2]
This discussion is meant to reflect a stream of consciousness of a voter who, while leaning slightly in one direction, has yet to completely make up his mind. Both sides have costs and benefits, and measuring them and then weighing them to see what benefits the league the most are not easy tasks for this body.
Measuring DV Draft Quality
In looking at the Baseball America top 50 prospects for 2016, there are four who are eligible for the Smokey Louis DV draft, one of which—count it, one—is a hitter (#49, Trent Clark). While Smokey Louis owners have unearthed some prospects who have eventually risen to prominence on either these lists or in the Majors, counting them to reflect the quality of the DV draft, while one viable measure, is in essence post hoc. No perfect measure of DV draft quality exists, and there are flaws in simply using Baseball America’s list as a guide, but these are the rankings at the time of the draft.
http://www.baseballamerica.com/minors/top-100-prospects/
Why MLB and Most of the Fantasy Community Does It A Certain Way
MLB and fantasy baseball leagues across the country, both part of a free-enterprise society, have largely agreed on the merits of the proposed amendment.
Imagine if the Cubs had to compete with other teams in a feeding frenzy for Kris Bryant or Kyle Schwarber, or if the Astros had to fight others off to sign Carlos Correa out of high school. This would take away from the quality of the draft. And theoretically, teams like the Yankees could have traded the Cubs for their pick to draft Kris Bryant, so the window is open to own whomever anyone wants on draft day is still there, albeit it a price. And that’s the idea—make these picks worth something great. Would anyone in their right mind trade a top prospect for a DV draft pick given who is available? There are quality players there, and many of them will (in the future) assuredly ascend to the top of this list, but the odds of hitting on them are lower and the time to wait for that is lengthier. I’m sure the Cubs could have found someone else who would later develop, but they likely wouldn’t be Kris Byrant’s caliber, and they would likely still be in AA instead of helping the club advance to the NLCS.
Here is a popular website on prospect rankings many on the community use (prospect361). On it, Rich Wilson, the scout on the site tasked with ranking prospects, offers his rankings for dynasty league drafts. He works on the assumption that these players will be available in your league, because that is the norm in the industry: players who didn’t sign with a MLB team by a certain date (usually in the early spring) are not eligible to be drafted that season and are not eligible until the year after they are drafted.
http://prospect361.com/2016/02/10/3418/
Should we have adopted this rule, the following players would be available in this year’s DV draft: Rodgers, Swanson, Benintendi, Bregman, and the list goes on. Oddly enough, the Farmers picked up three of these players in 2015 (one in the draft, 2 during free agency).
End of part 1
Doug
Begin, Part 2
Doug
Serendipity and Time
Our access to information is at a place we could not have imagined years ago, and many of us have the ability to check smart phones periodically throughout the day and email transactions when we see fit. However, just because people can doesn’t mean they should. Some do not have minds that are conducive to multi-tasking, or jobs or familial situations that consistently permit them to give anything less than their undivided attention to another task. Many like to work in “blocks” of time, reserving for the evening time to work on baseball research to keep up with the games. And, even among those that do have minds that can operate at maximum capacity while constantly being plugged in, many may be concerned about serendipity intervening to change the fate of an entire franchise. Imagine breaking news about a prospect signing from Cuba or new information about a middle tier prospect who is expected to rise up boards being delivered while you are in a meeting, or with your family, or in a movie. Imagine that, due to reasons beyond your control, another owner happened to take a bathroom break at the exact moment the news broke and was able to beat you to the punch.
First come first serve works well in many areas on society, but not all. It may be worth considering here. And again, this may help protect the creative interests of owners, as they will still have a shot at any and all players in the following year’s draft and will not miss out on Andrew Benintendi because The Farmers had class canceled and their spouse fell ill and needed attention. They can now trade for the number one pick and have at whomever they want.
Logistics
The concerns with implementing this proposal, if passed, are real and merit attention. The projections for it prolonging drafts or confusing transactions deserve our consideration, although clear evidence does not exist for the proposal’s effects on these areas in either direction.
Philosophy
Given the difficulties with measuring DV draft quality, potential costs and benefits to owners’ creative liberty to run their teams as they see fit, and logistic implications of said proposal, much of this discussion can be boiled down to a matter of philosophy, which, as we know, can be challenging to debate and resolve. The author of this piece has benefited greatly from the current system. However, he recognizes the potential harm—no matter how remote or unseen or difficult to measure—the system may have on owners whose lifestyles and paradigms may not be compatible with a first-come-first-serve system. And he recognizes the potential of serendipity to exert a powerful influence on outcomes, which, when combined with the reasons above, have likely prompted MLB and the fantasy community at large to consider cut off dates for eligible players. Smokey Louis is the best league in the world, and its uniqueness, in addition to its outstanding owners, is a main reason for this. So it is understandable when a rule change that may make the league more “standard” is proposed that it would illicit passionate debate. As it should!
To conclude, the author humbly thanks the readers for their time, respects their opinions on this difficult issue, and hopes to continue the discussion over ale on draft night as we collectively decide which decision is best for the health of our league. That is what I hope we decide—on what policy is the best for the league. May Providence guide us there. No matter the outcome of our process, 2016 promises to be a most excellent season!
Obviously conceived during the aforementioned bathroom break, but well written and worth consideration. Thank you
[MY RESPONSE TO CHOPP PART 1; MY COMMENTS IN CAPS/BRACKETS]
I would like to correct some inaccuracies from the proposal. Things have not "gotten worse" regarding DV talent in the past five years, nor is it hurting the league. Frankly, the proposal would hurt the league, as it would restrict the owners from acting in ways that they think (and in my case, often incorrectly) will position their team to compete and ideally succeed in the future. Case in point, I picked up Angel Villalona years ago, after reading about his "light tower power." What has he done since? He has spent more time in jail than in a major league dugout, but that was a mistake that I was allowed to make, and it unknowingly helped the other teams, since he occupied a spot on my roster for a while. For every Bryce Harper, there are ten Angel Villalonas, and this big brother mentality of telling me when I can and can't acquire someone is unjust and wrong. Don't most of us often say that we want less governmental involvement in our lives and businesses? How is this different (I realize that may be a bit dramatic)? [YES, A BIT DRAMATIC; BIG BROTHER? PRETTY SURE I’M NOT ADVOCATING WIRETAPPING ANYONE’S PHONES OR HACKING THEIR COMPUTER TO GET PEOPLE’S DRAFT LISTS] My philosophy is different from other owners' way of doing things, and my one championship in 21 years does not exactly represent a blueprint of how to succeed in this league, but it's how I choose to run my team, and I should be allowed to continue to do so. [MAJOR LEAGUE BASEBALL DOES NOT ALLOW ANARCHY OR ANYTHING GOES WHEN IT COMES TO AMATUER PLAYERS. IN FACT NO MAJOR PROFESSIONAL SPORTS LEAGUE DOES. THEY ALL HAVE RULES. THE YANKESS CANNOT JUST SIGN ANY HIGH SCHOOL PLAYER FOR THE BIGGEST CONTRACT. THERE IS A DRAFT & THEY ARE SUBJECT TO THE DRAFT. IT IS DIFFERENT FOR INTERNATIONAL PLAYERS BUT A DRAFT IS COMING FOR THEM AS WELL. AND, THERE ARE REGULATIONS FOR INTERNATIONAL PLAYERS WHICH SUBJECTS TEAMS TO CAPS & TAXES IF THEY BUST THOSE CAPS]. Who am I to say that a team that is perceived to be struggling is being prevented from improving said team through the draft. Frankly, that's a slap in the face to those teams (whomever they may be), as it is telling those owners that they are incapable of improving their team, even with high draft choices. And don't for a minute think that there is not premium talent available via the DV draft annually.
If you don't believe that statement, let me give you some data:
In 2014, there were 33 players chosen in the DV draft, which allowed for a crisp, efficient draft prior to the more elongated, but always interesting, MLB draft. Of those 33 players, 19 have great significance today (in my humble opinion). Nine of the 19 are represented prominently in the various legitimate top 100 lists, to include JP Crawford (#5 or 6 prospect in all the minors), Joey Gallo (#9), Trea Turner [TREA TURNER WAS PICKED UP BY THE FARMERS & NEVER SUBJECTED TO DRAFT] and Tyler Glasnow (#s 13 and 14), and several others in the 25-75 range of the top 100. Add to that, a future all-star at 2B (Rougned Odor), aces in Tanaka and Ventura, future superstar in Mookie Betts, a future top-notch catcher (Swihart), a stud outfielder in Steven Piscotty and a .304 hitter as a rookie in Devon Travis. CJ Cron and Bethancourt were not bad "gets," either.
[COHEN RESPONSE TO CHOPP PT 2; MY COMMENTS IN CAPS/BRACKETS]
Not satisfied? Let's look at 2015:
I believe there were 36 DV-eligible picks, 16 of whom are presently in the top 100, almost all of whom are in the top 60. Those names, and you may have heard of them, include Moncada (#4 or 5 prospect in all the minors) [JUST HAPPENED TO SIGN IN SPRING & BECAUSE OUR ROSTERS WERE FROZEN WAS SUBJECT TO DRAFT; HAD HE SIGNED DURING SUMMER HE WOULD HAVE BEEN PICKED UP], Urias (#7), Matz (#11, drafted in the 4th round), Arcia (conservatively #15, drafted in the 6th round!), Mazara (#13), Bradley Zimmer (#24), Brendan Rodgers (#30), Mateo (#39), and on and on. I understand that 16 of 36 is not a majority, but let's consider two things: 1: this was less than one year ago that they were taken in our draft, and they are all already in the top 100; 2: this does not count the players who are ineligible to be drafted in the DV draft because their blue-chip talent was so great that they have already made significant contributions to MLB teams. Some examples include: Luis Severino (5 round DV pick, major cog in a rotation), Lance McCullers (5th round pick, another major member of an MLB playoff rotation), Jung-Ho Kang (10th round of the MLB draft, however DV-eligible last year!), who was another starter on a playoff team. Also drafted late was Roberto Osuna, who had 20 saves as a rookie; if the DV draft is so lacking in talent, he would have been lucky to make it to high-A by being drafted less than one year ago. Other players made it to the MLB who were taken in the 2015 MLB draft, so it is incredibly inaccurate to state that the talent has gotten worse in the DV draft in the past 5 years. [NOPE, NOT “INCREDIBLY INACCURATE”—LOOK AT THE DATA, IT’S JUST A FACT THAT THERE’S LESS TALENT THERE THEN WOULD HAVE BEEN THE CASE IF THE RULE HAD PASSED.]
To say that it is hurting the competitive balance of the league is completely false. Over the same five-year period that is outlined in the proposal, how many different Smokey Louis champions have there been? I'll save you from having to look it up... 5. Exactly half the league owners have hoisted the trophy during that period. If you go back 8 years, we have had seven DIFFERENT champions. Competitive balance? Yeah, we have that in spades. I finished 7th in 2014, then was fortunate enough to win the next year, and Andy finished in the second-division before winning the next year in 2012. [NOPE, NOT “COMPLETELY FALSE”. FOR THE LAST 7 YEARS FROM 2009 WHEN DOUG BECAME THE OWNER OF THE FARMERS, 3 TEAMS HAVE DOMINATED THE SMOKEY LANDSCAPE & PLAYOFF SCENE: THE FARMERS, PUGZ, & STICKS. THE FARMERS HAVE MADE THE PLAYOFFS EVERY YEAR, THE PUGZ 6 OUT OF 7, & STICKS 4 OUT OF 7. FOUR OF THOSE SEVEN YEARS ONE OF THESE THREE TEAMS WON THE CHAMPIONSHIP. ALL 3 OF THESE TEAMS HAVE DONE A TERRIFIC JOB MINING THE DV TALENT & HAVE USED THAT TALENT TO BUILD PERENNIAL POWERHOUSES. I, MYSELF, WILL CONTINUE TO FOCUS ON DV TALENT REGARDLESS IF THIS PROPOSAL SHOULD PASS. BUT IT’S SIMPLY NOT TRUE THAT WE HAVE COMPETITIVE BALANCE—THERE ARE THE HAVES & HAVE NOTS & OUR SYSTEM MAKES IT VERY DIFFICULT FOR THE HAVE NOTS TO ACQUIRE THE KIND OF YOUNG TALENT TO TURN THINGS AROUND IN A REASONABLE PERIOD OF TIME].
[COHEN RESPONSE TO CHOPP PT3; COMMENTS IN CAPS/BRACKETS]
No, it does not take a village to raise the Smokey Louis trophy, it takes a willingness to take risks, make mistakes AND make sound decisions on draft night. [“DOES NOT TAKE A VILLAGE”? WHY IS THIS PROPOSED RULE CHANGE TURNING INTO A POLITICAL ARGUMENT? IT’S FANTASY BASEBALL]
With the dawn of smartphones, wifi in coffee shops and everywhere else, we all have the wherewithal to acquire talent (and make the aforementioned mistakes) during the season whenever we want; whether it's picking up kids from a swimming practice, freezing your a*s off in a youth hockey rink, stuck in traffic or waiting to be seen by your doctor, we ALL have the ability to look at a few favorites on our phone and see what's happening in this game that we love. [NOT EVERYONE HAS EVERY MINUTE OF EVERY DAY TO SPEND ON THEIR SMARTPHONE WAITING FOR THE NEXT CUBAN BASEBALL PLAYER TO DEFECT. THIS IS A HOBBY NOT A CAREER]. I think I would speak for all owners in that there aren't too many more things more gratifying than building a strong team through creative and at times wacky ideas, and this proposal would contribute to that no longer being the case [NO LONGER BEING THE CASE? WHY? I DON’T GET THIS AT ALL. PLEASE EXPLAIN BECAUSE THIS COMMENT CONFUSES ME MORE THAN ANYTHING.] If you like the length of the draft now, be prepared for it to be possibly significantly longer. [I ENJOY THE DRAFT; I DON’T MIND IT GOING A LITTLE LONGER; AN EXTRA 20 MINUTES WON’T HARM ANYONE].
[FINAL COMMENT: I MADE THE PROPOSAL NOT OUT OF SELF-INTEREST. AS ANYONE CAN PLAINLY SEE, MY TEAM HAS BENEFITTED FROM THE RULES THAT ARE IN PLACE. IF THIS PROPOSAL IS VOTED DOWN, I WILL CONTINUE TO TAKE ADVANTAGE OF THE RULES IN PLACE; HOWEVER, I BELIEVE THAT WHAT IS BEST FOR MY TEAM IS NOT WHAT IS BEST FOR THE LEAGUE AND FELT THAT WAY 5 YEARS AGO WHEN I ORIGINALLY PROPOSED THIS AMENDMENT. THE LEAGUE WOULD BE BETTER OFF IF THESE RULES WERE IN PLACE. AND MAJOR LEAGUE BASEBALL & JUST ABOUT EVERY DYNASTY LEAGUE IN EXISTENCE AGREES.]
Post a Comment