|
Post by NYYankees on Oct 8, 2005 11:08:20 GMT -5
While we are discussing issues in the league I would like to bring up the topic of the supplemental draft again. I know from his announcement Mark is planning to move the draft until after the rookie draft and I think there are some issues with this move than need to be addressed. First of all as many of you know I am against the draft in general, but understand it's purpose. My goal here is not to see the draft abolished, although I would be ok with that as well. My main concern here is free agents. With the way we had the draft set up last year, teams signed free agents after the draft, so these players did not have to be protected on the roster during the draft. Also the fact that the draft was held before free agency it allowed for teams to perhaps lose a large contract in the draft and then have that money to spend in free agency. If the draft is moved to after the rookie draft I think we need to allow teams to protect more players since they will have to protect a roster with more players on it due to the free agency additions. As we have already established the current rookie class would be protected. I think we all ought to have a discussion about the draft and come up with some ideas to perhaps address these issues, or issues that other owners may have with the draft.
Jeff NY Yankees and SF Giants
|
|
|
Post by Da Commish on Oct 9, 2005 23:15:50 GMT -5
Jeff-
Good points. The reason for moving the draft is primarily for ease of execution. The supplemental draft, as seemingly harmless as it is, ended up taking a lot of time just to get the players on the correct teams. Now...this usually does not bother me, but in this case I had to create a player, name him "Supplemental Draft", execute the trade, then go back and delete him for each of the players chosen. Not horrible, but holding the draft later in the process allows me to release the player, then sign him to the new team.
We have a week to decide this. I would like to hear the opinions out there, and will be more than happy to go with the majority. I was thinking that we should add that any teams who lose X amount of games but do not finish in last place either be exempted from the pool or be allowed to participate.
Example: St. Louis was 60-102, but did not finish last (Cincy was 59-103). I think they should be part of the drafting teams.
|
|
|
Post by NYYankees on Oct 10, 2005 8:40:21 GMT -5
Mark, I understand the purpose of the move, and as usual I am all in favor of making things easier on you if possible. I do have a question about how your planning to do the draft however. You mentioned that you would release the player and then sign him to the new team. My question is what about his salary. Some teams might place a high salary player with a long term contract exposed to the draft ( EX: Andre Dawson). If this player or one like him were simply released then the rest of his contract comes forward and counts against his old team and his new team might get him at a significant discounted price when he re-signs with his new team. Is there a way to work around this problem? I have no problem letting St. Louis in for the draft this year either. Now in the draft to be clear I understand our 1988 draft picks and 1989 draft picks would be protected as well as our 25 man roster plus one other player in the minors. Would it be possible to protect say 3 or 4 additional players if we hold the draft after free agency to allow us extra room to cover those players roster spots?
|
|
|
Post by Da Commish on Oct 10, 2005 11:59:46 GMT -5
Jeff-
There would be no penalty to the team who loses the player. I can work around that.
|
|
|
Post by ChicagoCubs on Oct 10, 2005 17:30:03 GMT -5
I am with Jeff on this one. I think we need to protect more than one in the minors. like 2-4. Especially after FA's. I understand that some minor systems do not have a lot of players and others have more than usual. I dont think it's fair for those teams to be penalized for trying to develop a lot of players. At the very least, we should be able to protect 2.
|
|
|
Post by NYYankees on Oct 10, 2005 18:36:59 GMT -5
I am glad to hear that the salary issue will not be a problem. I have been thinking and I think that a good solution for the supplemental draft would be one of two options. One a team can protect 40 players total plus the 1989 draft picks or perhaps the 25 man roster plus 5 players in the minors plus the 1988 and 1989 draft classes. This would allow a team the opportunity to protect some slow developing players plus their most recent draft classes. Of course I am willing to listen to opinions from others on this as well. I would love to hear from some more owners on this topic.
|
|
|
Post by Da Commish on Oct 11, 2005 10:55:53 GMT -5
Here is my position (and this is not going to change)...
The most you are going to lose is 2 players.
With your entire previous year's draft, 25 major leaguers, and one more protected player, plus anyone on the DL, you should have more than enough to protect your most prized possessions.
If we allowed a 40-man protected roster, etc, etc...then we would simply be reverting to where we were before. No useful players or players of value would be disperssed. I do not want to go through this type of extra work for no benefit.
|
|
|
Post by NYYankees on Oct 11, 2005 16:44:24 GMT -5
I did not think you would go for something like a 40 man roster, but I had to try. I understand that it would ultimately make the supplement draft a non factor, but as someone who is openly against it I would not mind that. Like I said when I started this thread though I am not trying to see this thing disappear, I have given up on that, at least for now. My main concern is to offer as much protection as possible to myself and other teams with similar thinking. The main thing is that when the draft was before free agency, if you lost 3 or 4 or more guys to free agency then those were spots you could use to bring up guys and protect them, now you would have newly signed FAs to protect too. I think a fair proposal would be the 25 man roster plus the 1988 and 1989 draft classes and either 4 or 5 guys in the minors. The if it is 5 players then it is just a flat 5 players, but if we did 4 then you protect 4 players and then once someone is selected you can protect one more player after you lose your first guy. Also under this plan I would say that the DL is not protected, you have to designate any DL players to be protected. The use of the DL to protect players ultimately is not a fair way to do it as some teams may have 4 or 5 guys there while others may have none.
|
|