Alright, so I thought I'd sum up the "Winter Meetings" discussion, and put things to a vote.
1. New draft order
a) Each team gets a number of pingpong balls equal to its finish.
b) The winning team cannot get the #1 draft selection
I don't have the exact odds for each pick, because that would take a bit more work/thinking than simple probability.
2. Expansion
I think the general consensus was to add one team this year, if possible. But we should put it to an official vote.
Also, how should the expansion draft be conducted?
a) Any unkept player may be drafted.
b) 1 player from each team may be drafted.
3. Expansion draft position
And, if we do add a team, we'd need to figure out where to put them in the draft. I don't think that has been discussed at all.
I guess we should just "vote" in the comments section of this, unless someone really would like it to be anonymous.
30 comments:
Bill's ballot
1. Support new draft format, for 2009 or 2010 draft.
2. Support expansion
2a) Any unkept player can be drafted.
1. I like the new draft format, prefer the second option where the #1 seed can't be the #1 pick.
2. For expansion, I'd say that any unkept player can be kept by the expansion team. I think this will help the expansion team get the best available talent and make it possible to compete this season. The 1 player/team rule seems arbitrary, and doesn't offer a lot.
Also, as far as the new draft set-up, I think it's not a huge shift from previous years, so I'd be happy to institute it for the upcoming season.
I would support the new draft format for 2009 or 2010 as well.
Support expansion.
If we do allow the expansion team to pick up anyone, I would like to make sure that we are able to make trades before keepers are kept.
Agreed with Mark on the ability to trade before keepers are decided. On that note, what should be our offseason trade deadline and keeper deadline?
Last year I believe the keeper deadline was March 1st. I'd be fine with that again.
It is a bit early to think about a draft date, but the season starts Monday, April 6 this year, so we don't have to worry about any early games this time.
1) Fine with the new draft order, and agree with the #1 pick having no chance. Would want to integrate in 2010 as I think it hurts me this year (seems unfair to integrate now if this is the case)
2) In favor of expansion, any unkept player
3)hm. not sure about that one. some number of ping pong balls i guess - in the middle.
I can't really think about this at the moment, but I'll come back and vote tonight or tomorrow.
But in the meantime - are we absolutely sure that we don't want to eliminate a roster spot or two when we expand?
1. I'm fine with the new draft format - but implementing it in 2009 doesn't help me at all, so I'm gonna vote with Spencer. Start it in 2010. It's not really fair to Spencer otherwise.
2. I support the addition of a team this year, and if Kate wants in I think she'd be great. It would limit her team quality, but I would vote for A - she can draft any unkept player. That is purely out of my own self interest, as someone without a lot of super valuable keepers. There should be enough good players left that she should be able to put together a good team like that.
I'd say give the expansion team the same number of ping-pong balls as the last place team.
Also, confirmed with Taylor this weekend that he is not interested in joining the league - "too busy"
Caleb- As far as expansion goes, I don't think we established whether or not we wanted to eliminate a roster spot. I'd be all for losing one spot, maybe two. How would you guys feel about losing a P spot and maybe a bench spot as well?
I am anti losing a P spot - i think this will incent us to use middle relievers.
I was thinking pitching because it has the least impact on what people would do keeper wise. If we remove a MI or a CI spot, that could really hurt a team that has many players worth keeping that are eligible for those positions.
Why do we WANT to use middle relievers?
I mean, I personally will do exactly what i did last year - stock up on starters and try to maximize Ks and Ws. I won't go near a middle reliever unless I have to. Despite dire predictions last season, none of us came close to hitting our innings limit, and I rocked a full staff of starters for most of the season.
I just think it's fun to have a use for good middle relievers and the fact that we didn't use any suggests that there are still enough quality starters out there that we'd rather use them than middle relief.
But Caleb's point is a good one, in that maybe that never happens. Given the K's and Wins, starters, even if they are marginal, may be preferable
I don't really see a downside to keeping the P spot. If people want to use middle relief or crappy starters that is an added element to manage, which I would see as a good thing. The main factor I feel is innings pitched and that would be harder to reach with less P.
Definitely don't want to eliminate a CI or MI spot as they do impact keepers as Andrew pointed out.
Any strong objections to the following rule changes?
1. Draft format changes in 2010
- 7balls for last place team
- 1 ball for first place (not eligible for first pick)
2. Add one team to the league (kate). Kate can pick up any player not kept for the 2009 draft value and for (up to) a 4 season contract.
Other notes:
1. Rosters stays the same. If another team is added in 2010, we will likely eliminate some positions
2. Keeper deadline is March 1
Where should the new team draft? I would say they should get either 7 balls and we go with the new format for this year or they are placed with the teams that finished 4-6. So,
Expansion Team 4 balls
6th Place 3 balls
5th Place 2 balls
4th Place 1 ball
And the more I think about it, because we need to change the draft system anyways with a new team, why don't we just go with the new format this year?
Here are the odds of getting the first pick Old System / New System
Expansion Team: .40 / .26
6th Place: .30 / .22
5th Place: .20 / .19
4th Place: .10 / .15
3rd Place: .0 / .11
2nd Place: .0 / .07
1st Place: .0 / .0
The main difference is the odds for the expansion team. I think giving the expansion team that good of odds for a first pick is a bit much and I would be in favor of changing the draft to the new format this year. It doesn't hurt Spencer THAT bad and makes more sense overall.
Just to clarify - we're picking for the first pick of draft order, right, not the first overall draft pick?
As for changing the draft order this year, I'll basically give my vote for Spencer. If he's OK with doing it this year I'll vote for it, if not, I'll vote against it.
Also to clarify - if we go with the new system, my ball (heh) is gonna be added after we draw the first pick, right?
Yes, draft order is the order we get to select what pick # we'd like. And Caleb, you're ball-less for the first choice, then uniballing for the remaining choices.
A ballless/uniballing Murphy? Oh, the humanity. I think we might as well go ahead and adopt the new system now.
Guys - there is no way we are changing the draft format this year. that is grossly, grossly unfair.
Also, the expansion team should not have a greater chance than me at the first pick. I think they should be in the middle of the pack. Just looking at what will be available to them on Bill and Mark's team after they pick their keepers, they will have a better keeper set than me. This is not a real expansion pick.
I don't think you can really call is "grossly unfair". We didn't go into the offseason last year with the draft figured out, and came up with that system. I think we all can agree that the system we used last year has some pretty obvious flaws that need to be addressed. That said, if you don't want to implement it, it won't be implemented, since Mark said any changes to the draft would need to be unanimous.
Regarding the expansion team's draft slot, I think they should have the highest chance to get the #1 pick. I'm not sure the argument that "they're keepers will be better than mine" holds water. The expansion team is getting the left overs from rosters AFTER a period of offseason trading. What if I think Luke's keepers are worse than yours? Does that mean he should have a better pick than you?
Keeping the same system as last year is not an option with the added expansion team. I agree with Bill - the disadvantage of choosing essentially the left overs warrants the best chance at the first draft pick. (Also to consider is that the expansion team will not have the benefit of a prospect pick). I don't think the expansion team should be a ridiculous chance b/c the talent of the left over keepers should be good enough for the expansion team to be competitive.
SO, we need to come up with a system for this year that does not grossly deviate from last years system but adds in the expansion team. I think the system we have proposed for 2010 satisfies both of those, but if people think differently than lets hear some alternate suggestions.
Right, so maybe I exaggerated a bit. But I think reducing my chances at a #1 pick by 8% is not really fair, since everyone else stays the same or benefits. I think we go with last year's system this year, add the expansion team with the 4 balls if you like, and then next year we will do the new system.
No system is going to give equal odds to everyone now that we are adding a team in. The problem with just throwing the expansion team into the 4th-6th group is that is now you have eliminated the chance for caleb, myself, or bill to get the #4 pick, which we had in the old system. So, I went from a 50% chance at getting pick #4 to a 0% chance.
How does this sound.
Top 3 teams (caleb, myself, bill) are not eligible for the top 3 picks.
Kate, Spencer, Luke and Andrew are in the lottery for picks 1-3 with 4, 3, 2, and 1 balls respectively.
Whoever from that group that does not get a pick goes into the 1st-3rd group with Caleb, Bill, and myself with 4 balls. Caleb, Bill, and myself get 3, 2, and 1 ball respectively.
Thoughts?
I don't dislike that, Mark. I think it's about as fair as we can get.
sounds good to me. then revised system for next year.
I don't really care about draft order for this year, so whatever you guys settle on is fine with me.
Just want to clarify what I think was a typo by Mark. Andrew should have 2 balls towards the 1-3 lottery, and I should just have 1.
Post a Comment