.comment-link {margin-left:.6em;}

Tuesday, December 21, 2004

Off Season AL Trade Proposal

So far I see 4 people in favor of keeping the off season to the AL trade rule as it is (Awobs, Islanders, Rajmaballs, Stiefels). 2 people want to change but don't know what would be fair (DooRights, Wobblies). One person wants the change (ComishRR). I would imagine that Bob has talked to everyone and wouldn't be so vocal about this if he hadn't heard from others who haven't blogged. What I propose for this thread is to come up with the best alternative proposal from what we have now and then we vote on whatever this new proposal is versus the current system.

Comments:
First proposal. Everyone in the league can designate 1 person as protected. This must be done at the start of the season with long term signings. Protection lasts for one year. If that guy is traded, you get the AL players provided nobody else's protected guys was involved (in which case we would use the highest dinero rule). If a player with "protection" is traded from one bu team to another, the protection is void.

Advantages: Only one guy per team so odds of a trade hapening are small which results in little difference from today. A team can protect their "franchise".
Disadvantages: Depending upon who you have signed at teh beginning of the year, you could "protect" a shmuck, then he gets traded to the AL for A-Rod and you win the lottery. Also, it's another thing we have to track.
 
I like Stosh's idea, but I would amend slightly. I would suggest that your protected player wouldn't be designated until the season is over, that way you could protect a guy acquired via trade during the season (Craig Wilson, for example). As I mentioned earlier, I would like to see the bottom four teams getting to protect one additional player. So, if you finished 9-12, you get to protect 2 guys, if you finished 5-8, 1 guy, and 1-4 no one.
 
I like the thoughts however am concerned with the randomness of thinking reserving one or two players will solve the problem.

If we seek competitive balance, suggest any team under 500 WP can protect all their players and any team over 500 WP can only designate one as a franchise player. If that player is traded during off-season to another BU team, the money team can designate another player.

Once a player is traded from NL to AL, the money team cannot reserve another player.
 
The reason I just like one guy is then the current free market policy still pretty much applies except for your franchise player. This would help prevent people from getting screwed and would still prevent people from getting huge gains for no real reason. One of the reasons I like picking at the beginning of the year is that would help prevent "gaming" the system. At the end of the year people might have a bit more knowledge as to who might be traded and then "protect" a guy on the chance of getting lucky. What if we chose at the beginning and had the "protection" trade with the player?
 
I feel like I'm beating a dead horse, but I still haven't seen an example cited of a team getting screwed out of a player who was more than say 10 dinero cheaper than his signed contract.

With all due respect, Craig Wilson hardly qualifies as an"impact" player based on his RC last year of 6.12. Even Vinny Castilla had a better year. Now Beltre at 8.50 would definitely hurt if he went to the AL. What! He did? (Sorry MudHen, a cruel jab.)

Oops. I've hijacked the thread and haven't followed instructions. I'll retreat to my hole now.
 
I have to go along with keeping the rule the way it is. I am open to other ideas (cannot come up with any intelligent ones on my own mind you) but the player protection proposal seems complicated and without parallel in MLB.
 
I haven't heard a good reason to change this rule.
The options are too complicated and have way too many variables.
I would keep it as it is - tough luck.
There is no crying in baseball !!!
 
I really don't see that protecting one player ( or two if you are a cellar dweller )will really come into play that often. I don't really like this idea so I would vote to leave the rule as is.
 
Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link



<< Home

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?