Return to Cold Stove League

General Commentary 2013

Moderator: smoovethug

Re: General Commentary 2011

Postby Fade2White12 » Tue Feb 01, 2011 12:58 pm

I don't really see all that much value in that. I don't think people are concerned with the duration of keeping young players if doing so is at the expense of our 10 MLB keepers. The bigger concern is that most of our rookies will never be kept following their rookie seasons.

I suppose that since you prohibiting us from having a vote, your idea is better than nothing, but meh. :-S
Fade2White12
General Manager
General Manager

User avatar
CafeholicCafe RankerMock(ing) DrafterEagle EyePick 3 Weekly WinnerLucky Ladders Weekly Winner
Posts: 3846
(Past Year: 10)
Joined: 7 Mar 2006
Home Cafe: Baseball
Location: Michigan

Re: General Commentary 2011

Postby Fade2White12 » Sat Feb 05, 2011 12:47 pm

I understand your concerns, but just like regular keepers from year to year, not everyone is going to have a great rookie keeper to carry over - I think that is to be expected. I don't really think that would affect anyone's draft strategy, though. And even if it did and they drafted prospects based on future upside (like I tried to do), they'll be the ones with the better rookie keepers in future years. I also think that everyone has the chance to have good keepers each year if they stay active on the WW. Jaime Garcia, for example, wasn't even drafted.

After a quick glance at the end of year rosters (didn't look at MiLB rosters) I think I saw at least one worthwhile rookie keeper on each team. Mind you, this was just a quick glance:

Aussie – Carlos Santana
Kaveman – Logan Morrison
Fade – Jason Heyward
Polo – Ike Davis
RBV – Buster Posey
Bobbing – Ian Desmond
Wicked – Stephen Strasburg
Rockets – Austin Jackson
Snakes – Neftali Feliz
Fezzik – Gaby Sanchez
TD – Brian Matusz
Smoove – Drew Storen

Anyway, that's my take.

I also posted the draft order with links in their respective threads. We don't do a snake draft for the MiLB draft, correct? So only one draft order is necessary right?
Fade2White12
General Manager
General Manager

User avatar
CafeholicCafe RankerMock(ing) DrafterEagle EyePick 3 Weekly WinnerLucky Ladders Weekly Winner
Posts: 3846
(Past Year: 10)
Joined: 7 Mar 2006
Home Cafe: Baseball
Location: Michigan

Re: General Commentary 2011

Postby Fade2White12 » Sat Feb 05, 2011 3:17 pm

Honestly, I think the requirement that it be a rookie is a positive. The whole point of this rule is to almost force owners to keep some of their "home-grown" talent that they drafted or picked up off the WW. The criticism by most people of our MiLB system was that there was little reason to keep most graduated prospects over proven MLB players. By just adding an 11th keeper, this issue isn't really resolved, and it also doesn't help in the other respect - duration - like you are most concerned with.

I'll quit arguing my stance after this post, since I think I've said my peace. But whatever we decide, no hard feelings. I'll be fine with whatever we decide. ;-D

So my final proposal is that you have the ability to keep 1 "rookie keeper" each year.
- This keeper is in addition to your 10 MLB keepers
- The player must have passed his 130/50 limit the previous season
- The "rookie keeper" tag does not use up any of that player's 4-year keeper eligibility (so essentially these players can be kept 5 years)
- These players can be traded to other teams, with all these attributes transferring with them

*This does not mean you cannot keep other players who have passed the rookie threshold the previous years - just any additional ones must be kept at the expense of one of your 10 MLB keepers and does not receive the extra year of keeper eligibility.


And you're welcome on the draft link thingies. I needed a break from figuring out my new home theater setup. It's somewhat of a headache. :*)
Fade2White12
General Manager
General Manager

User avatar
CafeholicCafe RankerMock(ing) DrafterEagle EyePick 3 Weekly WinnerLucky Ladders Weekly Winner
Posts: 3846
(Past Year: 10)
Joined: 7 Mar 2006
Home Cafe: Baseball
Location: Michigan

Re: General Commentary 2011

Postby RedBullVodka » Sat Feb 05, 2011 8:59 pm

Fade2White12 wrote:Honestly, I think the requirement that it be a rookie is a positive. The whole point of this rule is to almost force owners to keep some of their "home-grown" talent that they drafted or picked up off the WW. The criticism by most people of our MiLB system was that there was little reason to keep most graduated prospects over proven MLB players. By just adding an 11th keeper, this issue isn't really resolved, and it also doesn't help in the other respect - duration - like you are most concerned with.

I'll quit arguing my stance after this post, since I think I've said my peace. But whatever we decide, no hard feelings. I'll be fine with whatever we decide. ;-D

So my final proposal is that you have the ability to keep 1 "rookie keeper" each year.
- This keeper is in addition to your 10 MLB keepers
- The player must have passed his 130/50 limit the previous season
- The "rookie keeper" tag does not use up any of that player's 4-year keeper eligibility (so essentially these players can be kept 5 years)
- These players can be traded to other teams, with all these attributes transferring with them

*This does not mean you cannot keep other players who have passed the rookie threshold the previous years - just any additional ones must be kept at the expense of one of your 10 MLB keepers and does not receive the extra year of keeper eligibility.


And you're welcome on the draft link thingies. I needed a break from figuring out my new home theater setup. It's somewhat of a headache. :*)


I'm with Fade here. I like what he is proposing. ;-D
2009 H2HWS Champion
RedBullVodka
Minor League Mentor
Minor League Mentor


Posts: 884
(Past Year: 5)
Joined: 9 Mar 2005
Home Cafe: Baseball

PreviousNext

Return to Cold Stove League

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests

cron