+- First Class Mogul (https://www.firstclassmogul.com)
+-- Forum: General (https://www.firstclassmogul.com/forumdisplay.php?fid=1)
+--- Forum: Draft Analysis (https://www.firstclassmogul.com/forumdisplay.php?fid=117)
+---- Forum: Nokes Draft Reviews (https://www.firstclassmogul.com/forumdisplay.php?fid=113)
+---- Thread: What If FCM Had A Rule 5 Draft? (/showthread.php?tid=34564)
Pages:
1
2
What If FCM Had A Rule 5 Draft? - mattynokes - 12-09-2015
With MLB’s Rule 5 Draft scheduled for tomorrow, I thought it’d be interesting to look at how FCM’s Rule 5 Draft could go. This has been something that’s been discussed a few times in the league’s history. I think in Mogul leagues in general, this is something that is interesting. The problem and question often asked is if, “The work justifies the end result?”
With Mogul’s limitations, it can be tough to produce a true and authentic Rule 5 Draft. However, I’ve given it my best shot. The rules and eligible players are attached at the bottom of this post. For the sake of this experiment, I used the 2059 FA File. I only used the first 15 teams plus MIN and SEA. The latter two teams had considerable roster depth to add to the eligible players list.
Simple Rules
1. As long as a player is 22 as of March 1, they are eligible to be selected if drafted 4 years or more in the past.
2. Anyone with MLB Service Time must be included the 35-Man Roster (yes, 35-Man Rosters).
3. Teams need to leave as many open slots on the 35-Man Roster as they would like to make selections (max of 3 selections).
ARIZONA
As you’ll see with the exact rules, as far as the Rule 5 Draft is concerned, the rosters are locked as of the first Free Agency file. This means if a team plans on releasing crappy players that might take up 35-Man Roster spots, they need to do it before the Free Agency file is posted.
Arizona actually has exactly 35 players with MLB Service Time, so they would be set. They couldn’t add eligible players to protect nor could they select anyone in the Rule 5 Draft. Though, I’d expect ARI to release players like 2B Randall Crossman and C Ramon Hernande in order to protect prospects like Ryan Lee and Chip Watson.
However, I just wanted to point that out. For purposes of this experiment, it will be left as-is. It looks like they could have some interested Rule 5 offerings.
ATLANTA
They will have some eligible players, but nothing very enticing. They will also opt to keep two slots open for selections and only protect 33 players.
BALTIMORE
They too will have some interesting players available. They will also have a few tough choices on who to protect. Though, they would probably be in the camp that releases a few players to protect additional prospects.
BOSTON
Even if they protect everyone (and why wouldn’t they?), they would only have 24 slots taken. They’ll be able to select the max of 3 players.
CUBS
Without a doubt they will have some players eligible to be taken. A question could be if they opt to leave others exposed so that they may be able make a selection. For this, I will say no, but it would be interesting to see what Jason would decide in this situation.
WHITE SOX
Same as Boston. Will have ability to select 3 players.
CINCINNATI
It’s probably in their best interests to protect the max of 35 players. They have enough prospects that look too solid to expose. They will have no available picks.
CLEVELAND
I can protect all eligible players and still have 1 slot open for a pick. Granted, I would probably leave SP Edmund Batran exposed for the chance at 2 selections. Though, again, for this experiment I’ll protect Batran.
COLORADO
They probably have too good of prospects to leave exposed, so no open slots for them. What is left of the eligibles isn’t much.
DETROIT
Will have the ability to make the max of 3 selections.
FLORIDA
Like Arizona, I would expect Hokey to release some of the crappy players before Free Agency. But for the purposes of this they will be as-is. After protecting a few, they will add some decent Rule 5 options.
HOUSTON
They only have to protect up to 31 players, so they’ll have all 3 slots open to draft from.
KANSAS CITY
Like others, they could release or choose not to protect some players to open up draftable slots. So they will and leave 1 open slot for a pick.
ANGELS
And this is our first case of a team already having too many players with MLB Service Time. LAA will need to choose 1 pre-Arbitration (minimum salary) player to be exposed. That player will be RP Binu Hirasi. In all likelihood this team would cut some crappy players in order to protect a few prospects.
DODGERS
They’ll leave 2 slots open for picks.
MINNESOTA
I added them in specifically to show that teams with a ton of depth would provide a number of eligible players. Maybe they aren’t the greatest options, but some are decent enough to take a shot. On a rebuilding team, it could be easy to stash a player on the bench and maybe that 70/78 (not an example from MIN, just theoretically) has a couple of jumps left in him and peaks out at 81 and now a useful role player.
SEATTLE
Like MIN, they were added in to show what teams with an abundance of players look like. They will actually provide a couple of interesting options.
Strategy In Rule 5 Drafts?
Yes, there could actually be strategy in the Rule 5 Draft. Once a team has obtained the rights to a Rule 5 draftee, they can trade the player to whomever. You may not have any needs or desire to keep a Rule 5 player on your roster, but you may find yourself in a situation that could benefit you to select someone and dangle the carrot. Last season the Rockies selected Mark Canha from the Marlins. The Rockies quickly traded him to the A’s for a relief prospect and cash.
As I mentioned in the Twins write-up, you may find yourself in a perfect situation. Maybe you’re a rebuilding team, so you can afford to take some chances. Or maybe you already have a C, IF, and OF on your bench with 1 last spot open. Either situation could have you in a position to take a player and bury them on the bench or in the bullpen for a season.
RESULTS
01. :CHW2: 3B Adam Borthwick 80/86 (from LAA)
- Good platoon option with good power and a great eye. Hits LHP very well and doesn't age until June. Plus a good chance that he doesn't peak out on that b-day either.
02. :BOS2: SP Ryan Lee 79/83 (from ARI)
- Lee doesn't age until June (likely peaks as well). With a good jump, he could be rotation worthy. If not, then he's bullpen material even as he already stands.
03. :HOU3: RP Mark Selwyn 79/84 (from LAA)
- Angels lose yet another player (there is no max). He too, doesn't age until June. With one more jump, he'll have solid movement and possible a good bullpen piece.
04. :CLE2: CF Carlos Uranga 75/82 (from CIN)
- Maybe this isn't fun since I actually picked him up this season. But why I acquired him is because he's a lefty bat with good defense, decent speed, and a good eye. If he gets lucky with jumps, he's a starter option. If not, then he's a nice 4th OF.
05. :LAD2: RF Shawn Henneberry 73/84 (from SEA)
- I'm hesistent to say he could be a starter, but for 1M, he's worth the lotto scratch-off. He's got a nice power-eye combo and the contact should get to tolerable levels.
06. :KCR2: 1B Jose Corral 77/82 (from FLA)
- A lefty 1B in the trend of the high contact, good fielding, and decent power that we've seen in recent years. Maybe he catches on, maybe not. It's only a 1M gamble.
07. :ATL2: 2B Josh Munslow 76/81 (from BAL)
- He's a tremendous defender who'll make a great player off the bench. His offense getting better would only be icing on the cake. Stang realizes G$'s love for these types and flips him to NYM for a 4th Round Pick.
08. :DET2: RP Scott Jones 81/83 (from SEA)
- GB always seems to be looking for RPs and here, he found a decent one. He probably peaks on April 1, but he's got 80+ movement.
09. :CHW2: SP R.J. O'Reilly 77/84 (from LAA)
- Many thought of taking O'Reilly with their first selection, but were scared off from his lackluster vitals. JHC is in full-blown rebuild mode, so he can take the chance on his upside while dealing with probable poor performance for a year.
10. :BOS2: SP Bob Pendergrass 79 (from LAA)
- While everyone was fighting over unpeaked talent, Rocky has now found him a long reliever.
11. :HOU3: Pass On Selection
- With likely being highly competitive, Houston elects not to make a yearlong committment to anyone else.
12. :LAD2: SP Ted Thomas 79 (from MIN)
- Like Boston, LAD finds a long relief option with 80+ control and movement.
13. :ATL2: 1B Brian King 76/83 (from BAL)
- After trading away their first pick, ATL will keep King and hope he can develop into a nice platoon option with good power vs LHP.
14. :DET2: Passes On Selection
- Same reasoning as Houston.
CONCLUSION
As it turns out, no one loses anything that sets them back much. At most teams lose the type of prospect that rounds out your team and now they have to go into Free Agency in search of a reliever, a bench bat, or a holdover.
Admittedly, if people knew they were forced to protect anyone with service time, we’d see a few less 80+ peak prospects eligible to be taken. But in turn, people might not play release fodder during rebuilds and instead play the close-to-peak (77/81 type) prospects that would otherwise be eligible in a Rule 5 Draft.
RE: What If FCM Had A Rule 5 Draft? - 'PR' - 12-10-2015
I like it, and it's fun. But isn't this just more work for Andy without actually imposing something that fixes a big problem we may have with a loophole or rule of some kind? Why would the rule 5 draft make teams or the league better if they can barely add a suitable bench player with their selections? It just seems like another big thing to police.....maybe if we bump the cash amounts that must be paid up, it can become a new way to remove cash from the file along with WB?
RE: What If FCM Had A Rule 5 Draft? - mattynokes - 12-10-2015
(12-10-2015, 06:47 AM)Mstrpr626 Wrote: I like it, and it's fun. But isn't this just more work for Andy without actually imposing something that fixes a big problem we may have with a loophole or rule of some kind?
It's pretty much just for fun, but this would be the easiest way to run a Rule 5 Draft. If this were to ever happen, it wouldn't fall on Andy's shoulders, it would be on me or someone else who wanted to run it. The process is actually quite simple:
1. After making sure you have the same column heading as I do, copy team-by-team and paste into Excel tabs (I already have the template minus 13 other teams). Make sure the teams are sorted by Service Time in Mogul before copying.
2. Fill all rows of players with Service Time in Blue.
3. Sort the remaining non-Service Time players by Draft Year. Fill any rows of players within the last 4 draft years in Green (for the example, 2055 was the draft year).
4. Cut and Paste any player filled in Green that is UNDER 22. Then change the fill back to Clear (No Fill).
5. Sort the final Green filled, eligible draftees to Highest Peak, Highest Overall.
This might take a minute or two per team. Once I figured out how I wanted the file done, it was easy to find a rhythm.
(12-10-2015, 06:47 AM)Mstrpr626 Wrote: Why would the rule 5 draft make teams or the league better if they can barely add a suitable bench player with their selections?
That's being a little dramatic. Benches and Bullpens are mainly made up of high 70s to low 80s overall players. That is exactly the type of talent that's in the Rule 5 Draft. And talent that just may blossom into more if they get lucky with jumps.
(12-10-2015, 06:47 AM)Mstrpr626 Wrote: It just seems like another big thing to police.
I don't think there's much policing involved. It's pretty straight forward. Players with service time need to be protected. If they fall in the eligible guidelines, then you risk losing them if you don't protect them. If you don't turn in a protect list, then we'll still go ahead and protect the highest peak eligible players for you (I know the rules say Scouting Score, but highest peak is probably more agreeable).
Then, if you want to make selections, you can make up to 3 if you have the open slots. I think it could be hosted live like our Amateur Draft, but would be much simpler and easy to send in a list, "I want Player X, Player Y, then Player Z. If they aren't available, then I pass."
(12-10-2015, 06:47 AM)Mstrpr626 Wrote: Maybe if we bump the cash amounts that must be paid up, it can become a new way to remove cash from the file along with WB?
The cash cost could go up, but you'd have to make sure it isn't too high. People won't pay close to what WB costs since the return isn't as lucrative.
RE: What If FCM Had A Rule 5 Draft? - cadmus2166 - 12-10-2015
This was an interesting read, Matty! It might be fun to consider doing something like this.
RE: What If FCM Had A Rule 5 Draft? - 'PR' - 12-10-2015
I'm up for it, I really like the dynamic that the Rule 5 brings. Just one question. How many guys would be Rule 5 eligible on my squad? I have an idea but I want to see if I'm understanding correctly.
RE: What If FCM Had A Rule 5 Draft? - mattynokes - 12-10-2015
(12-10-2015, 01:48 PM)cadmus2166 Wrote: This was an interesting read, Matty! It might be fun to consider doing something like this.
We'll see. If there's ever a process for it working without a ton of outside work, it's this.
(12-10-2015, 01:50 PM)Mstrpr626 Wrote: I'm up for it, I really like the dynamic that the Rule 5 brings. Just one question. How many guys would be Rule 5 eligible on my squad? I have an idea but I want to see if I'm understanding correctly.
I agree. It could add another interest dynamic to the league. Much like compensation. Is compensation necessary for the function of the league? No. But the interest factor and dynamic it brings makes it worthwhile.
Your exact number will depend on re-signings. I can say that I ran the projections for my team. Accounting for the guys I'll let go to FA and that I plan on giving John McNamee a cup of coffee, it gives me 31 players with Service Time. But if we were actually running this, I probably release Dusty Stapler and Clinton Harrigan to gain me extra protects. So, I'd likely have 29 must protects. I'll then have 12 players that are eligible to be selected.
So, in the end it would probably leave me with 2B Jason Wright 73/81 and RP Ben Fehr 66/81 as the real options exposed to the Rule 5 Draft. I doubt Fehr would be interesting enough to take, but Wright (especially if he hits his Career Window in the spring) may have enough appeal to select.
Using the current file for your Rays for the 2059-60 off-season (if you retain everyone)...
- You have 29 must protect players
- You have 2 eligible to be drafted players (2B Gaetan Nuntaray and 2B Nick Hollinger)
- So, you could protect everyone and still have the maximum of 3 slots open for picks
RE: What If FCM Had A Rule 5 Draft? - mike - 12-10-2015
In my opinion this is one of those things that sounds a lot more fun than it really is, and also sounds good in theory but is terrible in practice.
I'm confused by this bit.
3. Teams must have as many open slots on the 35-Man Roster as their selections. (If they wish to make 2 selections, then can only have 38 players on the 35-Man Roster.)
Is that a typo? If it's a 35 roster why is there any mention of 38?
For starters you kind of used a best case scenario view on this. I've been in leagues that had rule 5. I can tell you right now you will never see any specs that are worth grabbing let alone 13 picks worth. You may see a couple here and there but defentely not this many.
So this leaves us with mostly bench fodder (even that is being generous, it would more likely be guys who are AAAA types). If everyone wants to make 3 picks that's 90 picks. At a minute per pick that's an hour and a half. Now factor in scouting the file which let's say is another hour. So that's 2 and a half hours of time spent for what amounts to guys who would barley crack a bench. I love playing mogul but I know I'm not the only one who has less and less time to invest in it. Barley cracking the bench leads me to
PROCESS
1. Players will have “*R5*” added to their last name for the season.
2. Rule 5 selections must remain on the MLB Roster for an entire season. Placing the player on the DL is allowed, but may result in needing to be on the MLB Roster for another season.
3. Rule 5 players may be traded freely, but the requirement of staying on the active roster for a full season remains intact.
4. The original team can re-acquire the player for half of the selection cost (500K) if the selecting team no longer wishes to keep them on the MLB Roster.
5. After the season requirement has been fulfilled (or if the player is returned to the original team), the “*R5*” marking will be removed and the player can be freely moved throughout the minor league system.
I have absolutely zero faith this could be enforced with any type of consistency. You'd have to check before your about to sim the file and I could see Andy forgetting to check it or whoever else may be simming. Not saying I think Andy is incompetent but it would be an easy thing to forget or overlook even if R5 is in their name. So if this were to become a thing I'd nix this part of it, but just say that if the original team notices him not in the majors they are entitled to him for 500k.
This point isn't too big but most of the time a good reason to have a rule 5 draft is because you see too many teams hoarding talent. Well even if teams are hoarding talent (which some are) it's not like we have no talent sitting in FA all year that could be signed. I'd rather see some program in excel made that could keep track of the amount of times a player is sent down and called up and oncenhe's out of option years then he's placed on waivers. I'm not sure if spreading the talent around was one of your concerns or not but I thought it was worth mentioning.
In conclusion, for the amount of more dynamics it adds to league (which is minimal at the best of times anyway even if your best case scenario came true) it's not worth the investment for 2-3 hours just to do it. You could say "well you could just pass and not do it" but I think adding something to league is only beneficial if we can have everyone or almost everyone utilizing it.
RE: What If FCM Had A Rule 5 Draft? - mattynokes - 12-10-2015
(12-10-2015, 05:17 PM)mike Wrote: I'm confused by this bit.
3. Teams must have as many open slots on the 35-Man Roster as their selections. (If they wish to make 2 selections, then can only have 38 players on the 35-Man Roster.)
Is that a typo? If it's a 35 roster why is there any mention of 38?
Yeah that's a a typo. When I initial started writing it up, it was a 40-Man Roster. The number should be 33.
(12-10-2015, 05:17 PM)mike Wrote: For starters you kind of used a best case scenario view on this. I've been in leagues that had rule 5. I can tell you right now you will never see any specs that are worth grabbing let alone 13 picks worth. You may see a couple here and there but defentely not this many.
So this leaves us with mostly bench fodder (even that is being generous, it would more likely be guys who are AAAA types). If everyone wants to make 3 picks that's 90 picks. At a minute per pick that's an hour and a half. Now factor in scouting the file which let's say is another hour. So that's 2 and a half hours of time spent for what amounts to guys who would barley crack a bench.
And you're using a worse case scenario with 90 picks. If every team actually had 3 spots open, then there wouldn't be any talent available, so it would render that year moot. So, that's quite dense.
Certainly there wouldn't be quite as many 80+ peaks available as I had. People will make roster moves to jockey around talent. Like I mentioned in the article, a side effect could be instead if using those crappy, should be released low 70s during a rebuild, teams might opt to play those mediocre, high 70s overall, prospects instead.
I've been in leagues with Rule 5 Drafts, too. And they sucked. They didn't have them setup as streamlined and sensible as I have it. You simply cannot say, "League X did it and it didn't work well, so yours won't either." The league I was in allowed you to expose anyone you wanted. That led to most people exposing older MLB vets in order to protect more young talent. That way if you lost them, it was no big deal and probably a blessing to remove their salary.
And it doesn't have to be 3. We can limit it to 2 picks. As I showed PR, my Indians would likely have a few decent low 80s prospects left exposed. Some teams will run into instances where they've jockeyed the roster around as much as possible and still have a few decent options left exposed for others to select. With this scenario, I also would have 0 picks that I could make.
(12-10-2015, 05:17 PM)mike Wrote: This point isn't too big but most of the time a good reason to have a rule 5 draft is because you see too many teams hoarding talent. Well even if teams are hoarding talent (which some are) it's not like we have no talent sitting in FA all year that could be signed. I'd rather see some program in excel made that could keep track of the amount of times a player is sent down and called up and oncenhe's out of option years then he's placed on waivers. I'm not sure if spreading the talent around was one of your concerns or not but I thought it was worth mentioning.
In conclusion, for the amount of more dynamics it adds to league (which is minimal at the best of times anyway even if your best case scenario came true) it's not worth the investment for 2-3 hours just to do it. You could say "well you could just pass and not do it" but I think adding something to league is only beneficial if we can have everyone or almost everyone utilizing it.
Because of the way Mogul does September call-ups work, there is no good way to chart options in league play. I think you're over dramatizing the process for this. This is actually how I would plan for it...
1. I would be able to release the Rule 5 Excel Spreadsheet within 24 hours of the FA File. (The file takes me about an hour to do)
2. Teams would have until FA Update 2 to get their additional protects in. (At least 48 hours to do)
3. Draft would be on WB night. (About another 48 hours from the final release)
Teams can actually start scouting as soon as I release the initial Rule 5 file after FA. Then if a team decides to protect a target of theirs, they can just cross them off their list. For example....
DRAFT LIST
1. SP B. Wright (CLE)
2. SP Price (CLE)
3. 2B J. Wright (CLE)
I would undoubtedly protect Basil Wright, but with how my team would look heading into the off-season, I don't know if either Price or Jason Wright would be protected or not. As soon as someone saw who I protected, they could cross them off their list. Or maybe they already sent me a list for draft night and I would be able to decipher their list.
RE: What If FCM Had A Rule 5 Draft? - mike - 12-10-2015
So you cant expose anyone you want with service time? Is their a salary limit? You have me confused when you mentioned in past leagues you could expose whoever you want but it wouldn't be that way with yours. Anyway the point being even if you don't like the comparison to other leagues, even going by your predicted draft you're literally talking about a little bit more shinier shit than the shit that's been seen in other leagues. Still doesn't solve having a time where everyone could do it even if they wanted to invest the time in doing it at all. As I had mentioned if this even were to happen it needs to be something a strong majority can participate in (the proper way not just sending in some list) otherwise what's the point.
RE: What If FCM Had A Rule 5 Draft? - AndyP - 12-10-2015
If there is strong league interest and it doesn't fall on me I'm open to it.